Leighton Flowers, I'm sorry...

Leighton, I saw your video and I'm sorry But you still didn't properly execute Romans 9 man Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video coming at you right now. Look we're not doing a debate teacher reacts on this one.

Why This Response Is About Exegesis, Not Another Debate Reaction

We're gonna do something a little bit different and really for those of you that are like what is happening? This is only gonna be the one time. Okay, whatever happens after this. It's on you guys before I get into anything.

Let me just go ahead and say something else. I blame you the wise disciple community for what's happened because you got me in trouble and You voted for me to do that. I didn't want to do it and No, I'm kidding.

Look two brothers disagreeing Is a good thing because in the spirit of iron sharpening iron, I think a good conversation can come out of this. I don't I think initially I thought you know what I my comments stand or fall on their own and you can tear them apart As much as you want.

But then I saw an opportunity To talk about something that I think we all need to get on the same page on and so here I am. Before I get into my comments and my response to Leighton flowers. Hi Leighton, let me also say this my heart in ministry if you're not aware of this.

It's not really about Disputation and back and forth and you know debate teacher I don't go to bed at night lying awake at the ceiling thinking You know, oh there's that debate. I gotta react to that debate.

So I don't know if you know this but I'm part of a team and we've been around for a while. This organization, which is a Christian nonprofit 501c3. We started out as a blog. It was just me In my living room, you know writing a little blog eight years ago okay, and we grew into a team and then Became a nonprofit and our heart in ministry has always been To equip brothers and sisters in Christ who know their God more and then to be able to effectively communicate that faith.

The the Christian worldview if you will. To a lost people that need to hear the gospel. Okay. Look Jesus gave us one job and that is the Great Commission and guess what I can do that with Leighton. I can do that with Calvinists Armenians Molinists, you know.

These are my brothers and sisters in Christ and that's where my heart is in ministry so I don't exactly enjoy this kind of thing, but again, I see an opportunity here to to jump into the conversation and hopefully give you guys something to think about so I made the debate teacher reacts video James White versus Layton flowers.

But after the debate teacher reacts video came out Layton flowers made a video reacting to my reaction.

This particular broadcast called wise disciple and I'm not sure the gentleman's name. He's got a great radio speaking voice by the way, and I think he's got a pretty cool idea a cool channel. He's a debate teacher who is commenting on different debates online now.

He happens to be more reformed in his sociology as I think is evident in his review of the debate. But he actually makes some points. I actually agree with what I really have an issue with however is When someone just takes the talking points of the opponent and just assumes they must be true without actually Validating the truthfulness of those claims.

And the claim that we hear James White make over and over and over again During the debate as well as afterwards is being once again Just a talking point that I think is just being propagated again here by this this wise disciple.

Which is Layton didn't exegete the text, but James White did exegete the text. I basically made the comments about exegesis.

Apparently James White said the same thing and I don't remember because I'm in my 40s and that's what happens. So don't get old friends. That's all I can tell you but apparently he said something he had the same critique and that led Layton and I guess some of his fans followers, whatever to Attribute to me the soteriological view of Calvinism which is interesting because I never actually said what my soteriological view is and then of course all the stuff about bias, which is again ironic because Atheists and skeptics do this to me all the time when I've done other debate teacher reacts videos and the atheist loses.

All of the atheists come on and say oh you're biased. Okay. Well, what about the substantive things that I had to offer? I don't know. Maybe we could focus on that. But I think Layton's critique in this particular area of the criteria that I was thrown out there on exegesis from his perspective.

It's probably legitimate because I didn't really explain. Okay, so let me let me go ahead and explain myself now. Let me also say that I'm not saying Layton's wrong in his soteriological viewpoint. I thought I made that clear in the debate teacher reacts video.

It is possible to Maybe not do the best in a debate, but still be right. Theologically and soteriologically, you know, I had no idea that the extent of the back-and-forth that was going on behind the scenes after the debate was over and You know, I don't.

I'm not really. I don't know James White. I don't know Layton flowers never met him. So, you know to get caught in the fray has been an interesting experience, but anyway Let me jump into my response here to Layton flowers because I think I still disagree with you Layton.

And by the way, if you ever make it to Las Vegas, I owe you a nice barbecue dinner. Okay I think that I mean for me to be able to say something like You didn't properly XG Romans 9 and then for you to come back and say yes, I did it.

Now, where do we go? Right? Well, the thing is I think we should go to two things number one we should go to a Definition of exegesis and see if we can try to find common agreement on a definition of exegesis and then number two We needed to go to how exegesis is properly done as an exercise.

Okay. Because I think doing that is is a more worthwhile exercise than you know. Replaying a video and saying here's here's me doing exegesis. This is where the heart of our disagreement is. It doesn't lie with what James White said or what any Calvinist or Arminian or Molinist says the heart of our apparent disagreement lies with definition of exegesis and Methodology.

So let's talk about that. You know, what does exegesis mean and how is it properly done? Well. In order to answer these questions, I'm gonna go to school. Okay, you're a professor. I have my degree in theology.

So hopefully we can find common agreement in this area. Gordon fees textbook on New Testament exegesis. Which is written for students writing exegetical papers, and it's also written for pastors who are preparing to preach.

I believe this textbook is very helpful along these lines if you can get another one I think that probably they're going to say something very similar to what I'm about to offer. Okay. And I encourage everyone to read Gordon fees textbook because this is why I'm doing the video.

I see an opportunity here for all of us to get on the same page when it comes to Properly exegeting the Word of God. I think that is a worthwhile endeavor. I think we all need to be on the same page. And so therefore that's why I'm doing this video.

So let's talk about exegesis. Exegesis is the activity Wherein you answer a particular question and the question is very broad. What did the author intend? Or another way of saying that is what did the author mean when they wrote down the particular passage of scripture that you're studying.

Okay, and it's understood that you know, there are two basic categories that fall under this broad. Question of what did the author intend or mean and those questions are? What is being said which is a focus on the content?

Of the passage and then why is it being said which is a focus on the context of the passage now at this point I don't think I'm saying anything controversial yet. Okay. I mean, hopefully I'm not let me know if I am I just don't.

I don't think I am but notice what I'm not doing is I'm appealing to James White or Calvinists or something and you know, the exegetical activity even breaks down further than that. Okay, so, you know, there are there are two kinds of contexts that you should pay attention to as an exegete of the scripture.

There's historical context and there's also literary context, you know historical context they it leads to the kinds of questions that will ask, you know, like What is the occasion of the letter that Paul wrote to the Romans?

It'll ask the question, you know to whom is Paul writing? When is it being written stuff like that? That's historical context literary context is More it leads to questions more along the lines of what is the Genre of text that I'm currently in wherever I'm studying.

What is the syntax or another way of saying that is what is the relationship between words in a given passage of study? That I'm looking at here. So in order to go about doing proper exegesis There is a method that must include a couple of key components.

They are crucial, you know. There and I'm actually I just want to zoom in on one particular thing that is in my opinion one of the sine qua nons, okay, the the that without which there is no exegesis of Exegeting a text.

Okay. Let me give you a couple of quotes from fee on this from the textbook again. The textbook is New Testament exegesis. Here's one of them the epistles for the most part are comprised of paragraphs of argument or exhortation.

Here the exegete must learn above all else to trace the flow of the writer's argument in order to understand any single sentence or paragraph. Here's the thing Leighton. One of those things is in paying close attention to the flow of thought of the author or the flow of the author's Argumentation, you know you you must as a good exegete trace the author's argument statement one to statement two to statement three.

This is why a lot of students they in school have to create sentence flows, you know, they have to trace in the margin and Sort of annotate the text in order to follow the flow of the author's thought process or their argument.

You know, this is why a lot of students In school, they are made to diagram sentences out, you know to kind of go back to that sixth grade Activity that everyone hated but do it with the Bible and sort of diagram out Sentences and their constituent parts.

Why why do we do this? Why do students do this because we need to keep track of the flow of the author's arguments and and the thought process. It's extremely important again. I think it's the One of the scenic one ons you take that out.

You don't have proper exegesis and in this way we respect the author. We respect what he's trying to communicate and well in just in point of fact, there are two authors, right? Okay, where are my brothers and sisters at there are two authors.

There's the human author of the text wherever you are. And then there's the ultimate author, which is the Holy Spirit working through The human writing the text anyway Gordon fee along these lines. Here's what he says the concern here is with the purpose or intent of the paragraph in the author's Arguments or flow of thought there it is again.

Why do you think it is said right at this point? What is the relationship of this paragraph to what has just been said? How does it prepare for what is to come now? Let me stop you're probably thinking to yourself late.

And well, I did answer those questions. The thing is you did. But you had to go outside chapter 9 in order to answer a lot of these questions. And I'm not saying that that's out of bounds. But what I am saying is if you don't stay within chapter 9 to answer these specific questions, and you haven't done it, right?

That's that's my point fee goes on. One cannot overemphasize the need for you to discipline yourself to do this exercise. No matter how well you do the details in the previous steps of exegesis. You will never do good exegesis until you do this step.

Well, stop. Am I quoting James White? Am I quoting Calvinism or Calvinists? No, I'm going back to school Leighton. Because that's how I was taught and I I just I assume although you know what happens when we all assume something I Assume that we're all on the same page here in terms of and brothers and sisters trying to get at the the word properly.

And that's where I'm coming from. You will never do good exegesis until you do this step. Well, the fault of most commentaries lies right here. They frequently handle the content questions well. But all too often fail to help the reader understand the point of the biblical authors words in a given Context.

Romans 9 Must Be Read in the Flow of Paul’s Argument

Okay now Leighton. I flowed your presentation. I did and You did not pay attention to the flow of Paul's Argumentation the flow of his thoughts in Romans chapter 9. It's as clear as day. No student can do what you did in an exegetical paper for school and call that exegesis.

All right, it would be more akin to creating a presentation On a particular subject and then using verses in the Bible to to support your particular presentation. No pastor can do what you did at the pulpit and call that exegesis.

All right, why. Because you are not helping anybody follow the flow of Paul's arguments. What you're doing is you're helping people trace the flow of your argument. By the way, that doesn't mean that you're wrong Leighton.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. Your soteriological view might be correct because it's not about soteriology at this point. It's about exegesis. That's it. So here's what I'm gonna do Leighton.

I flowed your presentation your opening statement, okay? And I'm gonna put it up on the screen and then I'm gonna play your opening presentation and then I'm gonna let everyone decide if I'm way off in my critique that you did not properly exegete Romans 9 or Or Or that maybe I'm right on.

Okay, I'll let everyone decide because I mean just looking at the initial your initial opening remarks you begin in Romans 9 verse 30 that's where you begin and then you go to verse 32 and then you go all the way back to verse 1 of Romans 9 and then you go all the way to verse 21 and In between these jumps you provide your presentation of your particular soteriological stance.

And then you throw in verses like Romans 10 1 Romans 10 verse 21 Hosea 3 1 when you do all of that you do not properly trace Paul's flow of argument. And there's a problem because if you don't properly trace Paul's flow of argumentation you set yourself up for error you create gaps and then you you Run the risk of filling the gaps with something that that is inaccurate in terms of the context of where you're at.

I'm not saying you did that Leighton. Okay, once again You could be right in your soteriological view. I'm just saying that at the end of the day you didn't properly exegete Romans 9. Okay. All right, everybody.

I'm gonna put Leighton up on one side and my My flow of Leighton on the other side and you tell me first of all, I want to just say that I agree.

With dr. White on many of the things he just now taught I agree with much of the the things that he teaches and that he does on his dividing line program. I very much support his ministry and hold him in high esteem as I do with many of my Calvinistic friends, there's No ill will to those who disagree with me on this subject.

And I hope everyone understands that we can be brothers and love one another even though we do disagree over this point in doctrine. I also agree with dr. White on the point that this chapter is Soteriological.

It is about salvation. It involves individuals. It's not just about nations. It involves Jacob and Esau. It involves there being chosen. It involves Moses. It involves Pharaoh. All individuals many times.

My view is totally and completely dismissed and washed aside as not being applicable because we don't involve individuals and that's just not a clear view of our presentation. Salvation by faith not by works.

That's the focus in Romans chapter 9. It's by grace. Not law. Paul's contrast in Romans 9 is not monergism versus synergism. I believe those are man-made terms used to reframe this debate throughout the entire Letter.

Paul has contrasted the salvation of those who pursue righteousness by works through law. Versus those who pursue righteousness by grace through faith, which in general is a contrast between the Jews and the Gentiles.

This is why Paul summarizes this chapter in verse 30 and following by contrasting the Gentiles who are attaining righteousness. Versus the Israelites who are not and why? Why isn't Israel attaining righteousness?

Is it because God doesn't really love them. God hasn't chosen them. God has destined them from hell before birth. Is that why it's not what the scripture says verse 32 tells us exactly why? They are not attaining righteousness.

Quote because they did not pursue it by faith. But though it were by works God clearly desires all Israel in every single Israelite including the hardened ones to be saved and I want to prove that point.

At the beginning of Romans 9 Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit expresses a Self-sacrificial love for the hardened unbelieving Jews, which sounds a lot like Jesus to me. One who is willing to sacrifice himself to give himself up for all his enemies is Paul more self-sacrificial than the Lord who inspires him to write these words.

I don't think so in the very next chapter Paul states plainly in verse 1. My prayer to God for Israel is for their salvation and then he ends the chapter. Quoting from Isaiah from the very lips of God himself all day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.

It looks like a father holding out his hands to a child. That's the image that we have from Paul. Paul also quotes from Hosea in the context in Romans chapter 9 and if you look at Hosea and in that context Hosea says It even more plainly.

He says even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel though they turn to other gods love and turning. And Jesus even weeps over Israel because they have become blinded so their unbelief is Clearly not because God doesn't love them or want his elect nation to be saved.

This is the nation according to verses 4 and 5 that has been entrusted with the very words of God. The Messiah and his message were ordained to come through Israel. They are chosen and elected for that noble cause for that noble purpose.

So why did Israel reject their own Messiah? Why did they stand in opposition to his word? I believe the reason most of Israel has rejected their own Messiah is because God has Hardened them in their rebellion.

He has blinded them from recognizing their own Messiah and He does so not because he doesn't love them or he doesn't desire for their salvation. He is hardening them for the exact opposite reason. He is hardening them in love and I want to prove that point tonight.

Paul explains in chapter 11 that he has set is sent Israel a spirit of stupor. He has given them over to their calloused self-righteous hearts and He has pushed them out almost like a parent would push out a rebellious teenager.

He has pushed Israel out. He has cut them off. This is a doctrine that is called judicial hardening and it is a woefully misunderstood Doctrine in Western Christianity today and if there was one doctrine that led me to recant Calvinism, this is it.

So I want to unpack it. You see this lump of clay, which is actually a Plato. I stole from my seven-year-old. It's going to represent the lump of clay we see in Romans 9. According to the Calvinist this lump of clay Represents all of humanity all of which is born hell-bound due to the fall in Adam in essence.

What Calvinist teach is that all people are born judicially hardened unable to see hear understand and turn to God now. They're not as evil Calvinist will say as they could be but they are definitely as unable.

Corpse like dead dead like Lazarus not dead like the prodigal son like Jesus says but dead like Lazarus in the tomb dead. According to Calvinist they are in this condition ultimately because God so decreed it as Calvin himself put it.

Some are predestined to eternal life others to eternal damnation doomed from the womb banished from birth. So even if God makes a genuine appeal to this lump of clay come to me I love you come be saved repent and believe they cannot willingly respond.

They can't. So God what he does is he selects a group from this lump and he gives them a new heart. He saves them irresistibly out of pure grace nothing that they've earned or done to deserve this and he saved them from this hopeless condition.

Which ultimately was decreed and ordained for them by God by the way. And why does God ordain it this way for his own glory? He wants to glorify himself to show these elect ones how good they have it in comparison to the ones who are damned to eternity in hell and.

Even if some of these are their parents or their children or their loved ones these people can't question God. Who are you to question me? I can do and make you whatever I want. If I want to damn them to hell before they're even born, that's my decision.

I can do what I want. You don't question me you worship me because look I'm not at least you're not one of them. You need to worship me. You see as much as I love my Calvinistic brethren I believe this is a complete misreading of Paul's intention in this passage.

Judicial Hardening of Israel and the Flow from Romans 9 to 11

So what do I believe this lump of clay in our perspective represents? Disheartened Israel at this time not all of humanity. So let's back up and consider this question. What was Jesus attempting to accomplish?

What was Jesus attempting to accomplish in the first three years of his public ministry? Was he attempting to be a great evangelist and just have thousands to come to him? Was he it was he attempting to have a Damascus Road experience for every single Israel?

He could have he's a son of God. He could have done it that way. But it seems he does just the opposite. Jesus would heal someone and then he would say to them see that you don't tell anyone about this.

If you recall Jesus spoke in parables, why why would you need to speak in parables to prevent the Pharisees from understanding and believing? He's cutting them off. He's blinding them. Jesus clearly did not want some people to turn to be forgiven at least not yet.

This is part of God's active work in judicially hardening Israel. Calvinist believe everyone not just Israel at this time. But every single individual is born judicially hardened and they remain hardened their entire life without ever hope of salvation.

Why. Because God salvificly hated them since before creation and that's just the way he ordained it. So don't question him. But we believe Israel over the years like clay can grow hardened if it's left out.

They've become calloused by their own choosing despite God's enduring holding out his hands. Despite his patience and his love for them and only now at this time is crucial time in human history. Is he judicially hardening them and giving them over to the rebellion to accomplish redemption through them?

Why would Jesus need to blind people if they are already born totally completely blind? Why send a spirit to a corpse a spirit of stupor to a dead man seems redundant, doesn't it? You see men are born sinners.

Yes, they are not born. Judicially hardened they are not born. Unable to respond to the loving call of their father at this time in history Israel has grown calloused against the revelation of God. Paul teaches us this very clearly in Acts chapter 28.

He says this. This is a didactic text by the way out of Acts. Paul witnessed to them for morning until evening explaining about the kingdom of God from the law of Moses and from the prophets. He tried to persuade them about Jesus talk about a long invitation.

Here's a long one all day long. Some were convinced by what he said, but others they wouldn't believe. So what's Paul conclude? He must not he must not love them. He must not have selected them. No, what's he conclude?

He says for this people's heart has become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears they have closed their eyes. What does it say? Otherwise, they might see with their eyes here with their ears and understand it.

I would and and they would turn and I would heal them. Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles and they will listen. Notice it says their hearts have become calloused not that they were born calloused.

Babies are not born with calluses on their hands and they're certainly not born with calluses on their hearts. Calluses grow over time with tension with Rebellion. And what might a person be able to do if they're not calloused?

The text tells us plainly they might see hear understand in turn. This is an explicit teaching of man's natural abilities prior to becoming calloused. So in direct contrast to the condition of the Jews who have grown calloused.

Paul says the message will go to the Gentiles and they will listen now. Why might they listen? Why might they hear? They're still sinful people, aren't they? Yes, they're having orgies. They're horrible sinful people.

Yes, but they're not judicially hardened by God. This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 9 through 11. With the cutting off of the Jews and the grafting in of the Gentiles. This is the special revelation of God first went to the Jews and what happened they grew calloused to it generally speaking.

So God has cut them off and now it's being sent to the Gentiles who are being grafted in. So God has given Israel over to the calloused hearts and he has blinded them in their rebellion. So they cannot recognize their own Messiah.

So doesn't that prove God's Word has failed as verse 6 says no, but why not? Because God's hardening his shutting off of Israel is actually fulfilling his word. It's not causing it to fail. God has a sovereign purpose in fulfilling his word through hardened Israel it is.

It is as Paul concludes at the end of 1132 it says for God has shut up all in disobedience. Why so that he may show mercy to all. This is God's plan to show mercy to all people. Now. How does he do that?

Well by hardening Israel He's ensured the crucifixion in the in grafting of the Gentiles and notice that individually hardened Israelites might still be saved and grafted back in according to Romans chapter 11 all of which goes to show what point God's Word hasn't failed.

But it goes further than that at this time in history. God hasn't hardened every Israelite. He is reserved for himself a remnant as dr. White pointed out a remnant to do what just to be irresistibly saved.

No to fulfill his promise by bringing the word to the world. Listen, not every descendant of Israel is chosen to do what God elected Israel to do or as Paul put it for they are. Not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

Not every individual Israelite is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected the nation of Israel. Not every Israelite is chosen to be a prophet a priest a king or in the lineage of Christ.

Not all of them are chosen to be apostles to carry the word and have the authority. You see not every Israelite is chosen to fulfill the promise that God originally made to Abraham. And what was that promise to bless all the families of the earth through his seed?

You see there's a false perception at this day in time of the Israelites. What's that false perception one? They assumed that they were born the authorities of God's Word. We speak God's Word and they also assume that they're born children of God by being a child of Abraham.

That makes me a child of God. I'm guaranteed salvation. And Paul's response to that way of thinking is to say no. No, not every Israelite is chosen to be an authority to carry the Word of God. Not everyone's elected for that purpose in verse 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants.

You see Calvinists take these two verses to mean that only some of Abraham's descendants are born elected to be effectually saved. No, Paul saying no descendant is going to be effectually saved on the basis that they are descendant.

You are not irresistibly saved because of who your granddaddy is. You are saved based not on your nationality, but on grace through faith. It's always been that way. See it is all about faith versus works.

Those who are striving to earn righteousness versus those who trust in the promise of God and his imputed righteousness. Which is exactly why Paul goes on to give a history lesson. Using Ishmael in contrast with Isaac and Esau in contrast with Jacob now.

Ishmael, Esau, and the Distinction Between Election to Service and Salvation

Let's just stop for a second and talk about Ishmael and Esau. Is Paul literally meaning to say that God hated Ishmael and Esau since before the creation of the world and they have no hope of salvation.

Whatsoever. No, I think if you read the Old Testament accounts you'll see that Abraham's prayer to bless Ishmael and take care of Ishmael was granted in Genesis 17 and Regarding Esau God specifically told Israel look at the screen.

It says Deuteronomy 23 7 do not despise an Edomite for they are your brother. God's not a hypocrite. He's not gonna tell them not to hate him if he hates him himself. Remember what God's original promise was to Abraham.

I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you. That's a conditional promise. I will bless those who bless you and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. So God promised to bless Abraham.

Now let me ask you does that mean God is going to condemn seven of Abraham's son and most of his Grandsons and not choose them to carry the seed because he's that's not a blessing. You got to look at the promise.

He says he will bless those who bless you. Couldn't Ishmael and others the other brothers who are not chosen to carry the lineage. Couldn't they still believe and support that promise and thus be saved because they bless the lineage they bless the promise.

Here's the point and this is the part of the cross examination I was trying to get to the distinction must be made Between those chosen by God to bring his word and those chosen to be saved as a result of believing that word.

Do you see the distinction between those two things? So what does Paul mean in verse 13 when he quotes from Malachi Jacob I loved and Esau I hated as Dr. White has pointed out. This is 1500 years between verses 12 and verse 13 and it's after Jacob and Esau are of course long dead.

And it's in response to the Edomites after they have attacked Israel. So in response to their cursing of Israel Edom's cursing of Israel, the promise says I will curse those who curse you. So what's Paul's point.

Being the seed of Isaac does not ensure your salvation. Especially if you stand in opposition to the very Word of God as did your own brothers the Edomites. Verse 14 asked the question is God just to condemn a direct descendant of Isaac to hell.

Ask the Edomites they stood in opposition to God Fulfilling of his promise and look what happened to them. Paul is saying if you curse those direct descendants of Isaac for opposing God's Word. Why would it be unjust for him to condemn you for opposing God's Word?

Paul is reminding his readers that direct descendants standing in opposition to God's Word. It's nothing new. It's been happening for years there's no reason to think God's Word is failed because Descendants are opposing him.

Paul goes on to quote from God's exchange with Moses in Exodus 32 and 33 all mercy on whom I have mercy. This is where Israel has obviously just built the golden calf. They deserve to be wiped out immediately for their rebellion against God.

But in response to Moses's intercession God relents and he shows them mercy. So why would Paul refer to this story which they would have been very familiar with? Paul is saying by way of a history lesson if God chooses to show mercy to some unfaithful Israelites and Harden other unfaithful Israelites in order to fulfill his promise to bring the word to the world.

Then who are you to question him verse 16? So it then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy. What is it referring to in verse 16 same thing he introduced in verse 6.

That's why verse 6 I agree with dr. White is key. He's referring to God's Word not failing because God's Word doesn't depend upon the man who wills and the man who wants runs God's promise to bless all the families of The earth and his by his word that cannot fail.

It's not dependent upon the faithfulness of the Israelites. He will show mercy to the unfaithful Israel by patiently enduring them in the rebellion in order to fulfill his promise. Like he did in the cold golden calf incidents and he will harden them in the rebellion in order to fulfill that same promise.

Like he's doing now in the first century. Paul uses the example of Pharaoh in verse 17 and 18 to make his point. Just as God hardened Pharaoh in his rebellion to accomplish the first Passover catch this.

So too he hardens Israel in their rebellion in order to accomplish the real Passover. God is accomplishing a redemptive purpose through hardening Israel now. What would one of these callous Jews say in response to this if you were one of those Jews?

That was being cut off in calloused. Well, Paul tells us exactly what a Jew would say to that Romans 3 5. He brings the diatribe up earlier in the book of Romans. But if our righteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly.

What shall we say that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? That's an Israelite talking. Does that sound familiar? It sounds exactly like verse 19. The Paul's objector is not an Arminian. Paul's objector represents an Israelite who has grown calloused and is being Judicially hardened in that condition.

It does not represent someone born Decreed by God to be totally unable to willingly respond to God's own appeals to be reconciled. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture which teaches that man is born unable to respond to God's gracious truth.