Leighton Flowers, I'm sorry...

Leighton, I saw your video, and I'm sorry, but you still didn't properly exegete

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.

We're going to do something a little bit different, and really, for those of you that are like, what is happening, this is only going to 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 think initially, I thought, you know what, 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 debate teacher,

I don't go to bed at night lying awake at the ceiling thinking, oh, that debate,

I got to react to that debate. 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 writing a little blog eight years ago, 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

Christian worldview, if you will, to a lost people that need to hear the gospel. 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, Arminians, Molinists.

These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and that's where my heart is in ministry.

I don't exactly enjoy this kind of thing, but again, I see an opportunity here to jump into the conversation and hopefully give you guys something to think about.

I made the Debate Teacher Reacts video, James White vs. Leighton Flowers, but after the

Debate Teacher Reacts video came out, Leighton Flowers made a video reacting to my reaction.

This particular broadcast called Wise Disciple, I'm not sure of 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.

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

Wise Disciple, which is, Leighton 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

Leighton, 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 Leighton'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 go ahead and explain myself.

Now, let me also say that I'm not saying Leighton'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'm not really, I don't know James White, I don't know Leighton 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 Leighton Flowers, because I think I still disagree with you,

Leighton, 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 exegete

Romans 9, and then for you to come back and say, yes I did, 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 need to go to how exegesis is properly done as an exercise, okay?

Because I think doing that is a more worthwhile exercise than, you know, replaying a video and saying, 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 going to 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 Fee's 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 Fee's 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 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 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 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, 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? They're, 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, 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 the thought process.

It's extremely important. Again, I think it's the one of the sine qua nons.

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.

Well, 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 argument 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, Leighton, well, I did answer those questions.

The thing is, you did, but you had to go outside chapter nine 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 nine to answer these specific questions, then you haven't done it right.

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. 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 brothers and sisters trying to get at the word properly.

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 author's words in a given context.

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 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 going to do, Leighton. I flowed your presentation, your opening statement, okay?

And I'm going to put it up on the screen, and then I'm going to play your opening presentation, and then I'm going to let everyone decide if I'm way off in my critique that you did not properly exegete

Romans 9, or that maybe I'm right on, okay?

I'll let everyone decide because, I mean, just looking at 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 run the risk of filling the gaps with something 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 going to put Leighton up on one side and 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 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 is 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 their 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 and 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 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 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

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 Calvinists, this lump of clay represents all of humanity, all of which is born hellbound due to the fall in Adam.

In essence, what Calvinists teach is that all people are born judicially hardened, unable to see, hear, understand, and turn to God.

Now, they're not as evil, Calvinists 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 Calvinists, 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.

So what do I believe? This lump of clay, in our perspective, represents hardened

Israel at this time. Not all of humanity. So let's back up and consider this question.

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 attempting to have a

Damascus Road experience for every single Israel? He could have, he's the 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 and be forgiven, at least not yet.

This is part of God's active work in judicially hardening Israel. Calvinists 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 salvifically 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, this 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 from 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 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, hear with their ears, and understand.

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 callouses on their hands. And they're certainly not born with callouses on their hearts.

Callouses grow over time with tension, with rebellion. Now, what might a person be able to do if they're not calloused?

The text tells us plainly. They might see, hear, understand, and 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 as Paul concludes at the end of 11, 32.

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 and the engrafting 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 has 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 has 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 and 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's saying no descendant is going to be effectually saved on the basis that they are a 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, 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 that's not a blessing. You gotta 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. Wattis 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 asks 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 has failed because descendants are opposing him.

Paul goes on to quote from God's exchange with Moses in Exodus 32 and 33. I'll have 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' 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 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 runs.

God's promised to bless all the families of the earth and 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 their rebellion in order to fulfill his promise, like he did in the 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 and 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.

That is why he holds us able to respond. We are able to respond to the truth of God that is revealed.

That's why he holds us responsible to that Word. Romans 1 clearly teaches that no man has any excuse.

Yet if Calvinism is true, then unbelievers have the best excuse known to man. God made me like this.

I couldn't have done otherwise. I hated God. Why? He first hated me. I rejected

God. Why? He first rejected me. God made me like this and I was not able to do anything about it.

I was not able to have faith. Why? He didn't grant me the faith to have. We give mankind an excuse and unbelievers an excuse by adopting the systematic.

I believe we need to be able to say the simplicity of the gospel. Repent and live as Ezekiel 18 says.

Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Thank you. Layton, I stand by my words. All right. This was a thorough presentation against Calvinism utilizing passages of the scripture including a lot of verses out of Romans 9.

This was not a proper exegesis of Romans 9. So for those of you that have been tracking this discussion, hopefully, you know, you know a little bit more about exegesis.

I mean, that was my heart in responding to Layton Flowers. Layton, you are my brother and you and I could be really good friends.

Okay, like I said, if you ever make it to Vegas, look me up. I will take you out. I owe you a nice barbecue dinner. And this is the only video that you're going to get from me because we are moving on.

Wise Disciple friends, we are doing Mike Lacona versus Matt Dillahunty. It is on the docket.