Road Trip Radio Free Geneva From Golden, Colorado

I constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this,.

Ma, ma, God's suffering, God's suffering,.

Ma, suffering, suffering, suffering. They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much, you start to think it's a biblical truth.

Standing, standing on top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died. For all those who elected, were selected.

You take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format.

And really believe that it parallels.

The method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things. Um, no.

Said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist. Not override your unbelief.

Hydra is evil for causally determining Bucky to kill Tony Stark's parents, but everybody recognized that Doctor Strange is the hero in Infinity War and Endgame. And Infinity War and Endgame.

To realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to.

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge.

Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

He's talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat.

Now, from our bunker deep underneath Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from Dave Hunt fans, Leighton Flowers, provisionists, and future monks of the Dominican order, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

Gets me every time, I gotta admit. Especially the tossy lot. I just, I will never get over that one. That turned the AC off. It's actually cooler outside than inside. It's the heat sources inside that gets you.

This ATEM over here puts out a lot of heat, and the Starlink router puts out a lot of heat. That's why it warms up in here. Might have some storms hit. We are in Golden, Colorado, and we just had, man, it looked like we were gonna get nailed, but it's just like, nope, I'm gonna duck right underneath you and we're not gonna rain on you.

I haven't got much rain yet, but there's a few more chances there, watching the radar here. Love watching weather radars. Anybody else love watching weather radar? I think it's really cool. It may be a boomer thing, I don't know.

But yes, so here we are, and I'm in a pretty good mood. I finally finished my article that I've been working on for months. Now I'm reading it and catching stuff. I'll tell you, I'll just give you this one insight, because if you bother to read it, most people will not.

I've had one or two people read the first draft, and at least they understood what I was talking about. That's good. But when you're working on something for so long, and you're bringing so much data and stuff into it, when you cut and paste all sorts of stuff, I had one of the AIs look at the final, when I got done, basically, the file, and just look at the formatting.

What was really cool is I was able to say, hey, here's the format guide that the seminary uses. So analyze it using this. It's like, okay, that's cool. And it can see stuff I can't see. So there were places where there were like holes, you know, there's blank space.

And I'm using a word processor, I don't really know all that well, and have been from the start, so that was part of the problem. But I think at one point when it audited it and gave me a report, there were like eight different paragraph styles that were being used in font sizes and all this stuff.

Because you're, you know, you find a source over here, you grab it, you put in a file over here, and you grab this, you put that file in there, and they eventually get together and you try to edit them together, but the fonts aren't right, and the paragraph settings aren't right, and oh, man.

And thankfully, the AI fixed all that. It's just what, do you want it just to follow the style guide, please? Okay, that saved me about five days. Yeah, working on something for that many months, you go back and read stuff, and you find out that when you started, you were using PDFs that used the journal article pagination, and then you got PDFs that are circulating now that are being distributed, and they're not the same pagination, and so you've got to go back, and the AI is not going to do this.

You've got to go back yourself and compare the sources and find out which one you're going to use. It's a lot of work, and it's only 8 ,300 words, which is not, it's almost two journal articles, but not quite.

They've given me some grace as far as that goes. So, yeah, it will eventually be published in the Grace Bible Theological Seminary journal, and I would assume would be generally available to people. Like I said, outside of a certain group of people, I spent a lot of time on something that's not going to get read overly widely, but there's a reason for it, and the reason is partly the debate in October and partly what comes after that.

Yeah, will part of this article maybe end up in a book someday? Maybe, I don't know. We'll find out, but I felt it was important to address, and I sort of had to sit back and go, who is going to address this if I don't?

Who's in a better position to address this than I am? And so that's why we did it, and the audience may not be a big, huge audience, but I think it's important to be addressing these things. So anyways, I'm feeling pretty good having that done, though I still got hours of reading, editing, making sure all the formatting ends up, because when you edit, then you're gonna mess things up, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All right, so Radio Free Geneva has nothing to do with the Dionysian corpus supposedly being from the first century, which it is not. I mentioned to you before that I wanted to address this particular topic.

It's a six-minute video that came out a couple months ago, a month and a half, maybe. I'm not sure. Anyway, I mentioned on the last program, I think on the last program, and it includes Frank Turek and one of the guys from Trinity and some other folks I don't really recognize talking about Calvinism, answering some questions from a Q &A moderator type guy.

And what I found interesting was the questions that were asked had scriptural references that were included with them. And at least in the video that I have, maybe in the actual presentation, they opened their Bibles.

I didn't really see any Bibles on their laps or anything. And all I know is they chose what to put in the video, not me. I'm not editing anything out. Well, I edited it out. What they do is they put some teaser quotes at the start that are in the rest of the video, but to get you to watch it.

I took that out so we don't have to listen to the same thing twice or respond to the same thing twice. But I'm just letting what they put out roll. So their responses, as is often the case, to be perfectly honest with you, when dealing with Synergists, were lacking almost any biblical content at all.

They were philosophical, they were theological, but they don't show a whole lot of interest in that Bible stuff. And that's been my observation for many, many years. I'll just be perfectly honest with you.

That's one of the reasons I'm Reformed. And I mean that in reference to Reformed soteriology. Unfortunately, that term Reformed can very often be attached to all sorts of wild and weird and strange stuff that I have no interest in being associated with at all.

So anyway, oh man, I'm gonna be distracted. I like this little park. It's in a great place for doing writing. I've already done more outside writing than I've done in the past year. It really is, but it's not a big park.

And in fact, outside here, if this guy comes through here, he'll be so close to my back window that I'll be able to read the VIN number on this unit as it goes by. Seriously, it's a tight fit. I had fun getting in here.

I literally have about four inches on the back side and two inches on the front side in the slot that I'm in. In fact, Richard could find this interesting. Sorry about this. Just, hey, I'm weird and you're watching.

So there you go. I have purchased, I think it was, yeah, it arrived today, so I'll get it tomorrow. My poor dear friends up here in Denver that have to put up with all my Amazon shipments. Because this place won't accept Amazon shipments.

I found these rubber bumpers that you can use on docks. So they're pretty thick rubber that you put on the edge of a dock. Why in the world would I order dock bumpers? Because you turn it this way, and Rich will find this interesting.

I didn't tell him about this. You turn it this way and you can slide it around the front of the hitch, the tongue that's on the RV, and use a bungee cord to keep it there. Why would you do that? Because I have to back right up to that thing, like this close to it, to keep the front end of my truck from sticking out of the road.

And so I got the idea. Right now I have a thick pair of gloves wrapped around it. Because, you know, even when you, I'm watching the camera. I've got cameras all over this truck. You know, I'm right there.

But, you know, and I hit the parking brake, so I don't move. But sometimes, you know, even when you shift, stuff moves, I don't wanna go banging into that thing. Because it ain't going any place. The truck's gonna lose that battle.

The truck's 8 ,500 pounds, but the unit's 15 ,500 pounds. So you see who wins. Radio-free RVing, yes. And so I'd never seen anybody do something like this, but I'm just like, you know what? I'm gonna try this.

Why not? It could be something I end up using for years. And it could be something that ends up in the trash here when I leave. It's worth taking a shot anyways. So, yes. All right, what were we talking about?

Oh, Calvinism, yes. How did we get? Oh, I'm watching this poor guy down here. He's trying to get around a corner with a big old unit. And he's backing up and then moving forward and backing up. And oh, I hate when people get stuck in.

I don't want to get stuck in that situation. I've gotten really close to getting stuck in a situation like that. And okay, he's heading my way. Yeah, oh, yeah. If you've never done it, you know, the closest thing Rich has gotten to it, he did a little truck driving at a place he worked at and then backing up a boat, you know.

But it's different when it's your house, you know what I mean? And it looks like about a 37, 38 foot unit he's got there. Hope he gets it in there, that's all I can say. I hope he doesn't drive through here because my neighbors still have their truck out on the road.

All right, this video, back to it again. I'll try to, look, if I see him heading straight for me, I'll probably get distracted again. But I, yep, here he comes. Yep, coming right up right now. And uh-huh, literally the camera that you're watching right now will be within two feet of the side of his unit when he comes by me.

And there he goes through. Hi, how you doing? And it's an Alliance. Yeah, there you go, Alliance Avenue All Access. Okay, all right, going by right there. Didn't hit anything. We're feeling better now.

It's live, folks, there you go. All right, so we have responded to Frank Turek many times on claims that he makes. And we've tried to arrange debates and stuff like that. And immediately other people that nobody's ever heard of, Carol asked what they say, jump in and I'll debate that, I'll debate that.

It's like, no, I'm not interested in debating you. I'm interested in debating the guy who's on the campus that's saying these things. And all he's doing is repeating the Norm Geisler stuff. It's sort of sad that he hasn't recognized that Norm's position on these issues really got run over badly many moons ago.

And so he's just repeating the same stuff. And so he's one of the people commenting here, but I want to listen to it. And I want to look at the biblical passages that were asked because I thought they were good passages.

I thought they were very relevant. And I think the fact that at least what they chose to produce in the video doesn't even acknowledge the biblical content, says a lot, says a lot. So I'm assuming Rich is gonna do all this stuff on his end.

You know, I'm still used to doing, having to do. I did a presentation for some young students up in Moscow, Idaho this morning, two and a half hours teaching them to prepare to talk to Mormons. And by the way, I just was informed that there is a new temple going into Colorado Springs and a temple was built two years ago in Grand Junction.

So I'm doing a lot of talk about Mormonism these days because people are seeing the growth and at least the temple building stuff that's been going on over the past quarter century now. And I used the ATEM and everything, right, sitting right here for two and a half hours this morning, helping folks with Mormonism.

So here we go again. All right, let's jump into this.

Sovereignty, Predestination, and the Biblical Texts in the Q&A

Starts right here. Do you believe that God's sovereignty determines all of history? First Kings 12 .15, Ezekiel 38 .10, Habakkuk 1 .5 and 6, 2 .6 through 20 seem to suggest this. Do you reject the doctrine of predestination?

If so, on what scriptural grounds do you believe that it's part of God's plan for some people to reject him? First Samuel 2 .25 seems to imply this.

Okay, so there are the scripture passages. What do the scripture passages say? So I'm looking here. This is a broad shot of the whole group and the black brother might have a Bible on his lap. I can't tell, nobody else does.

Nobody else has a Bible. And I don't believe that during the response, any Bibles will be open. And at least in what they give, no references. So what are these passages? Well, First Kings 12 .15 says, so the king did not listen to the people for it was a turn of events from Yahweh that he might establish his word which Yahweh spoke to Ahijah, the Shillinite, to Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.

Now catch what it says. The king didn't listen to people, but he has free will, autonomous free will. He has to have autonomous free will. But he didn't listen to the people for it was a turn of events from Yahweh.

Well, wait a minute. So the fact that he didn't listen to the people came from Yahweh. Why? That he might establish his word, which Yahweh spoke through Ahijah, the Shillinite. How important in the thinking of most people is the establishment of the word of Yahweh in comparison to man's vaunted autonomous will?

The Bible's answer is clear on that, but the popular answer is clear on that too. And they're not the same thing. Yeah. Well, but he had to have the ability to listen and it had to be his free choice.

Not according to scripture. Not according to 1 Kings 12, 15. And let's just be honest. Can we just be honest a moment? I'm not saying this about these guys because I only know two of them. I only know who two of them are and don't know them very well.

But Old Testament citations for the majority of people involved with New Testament theology today are secondary to that. Most seminary graduates have such a low view of scripture, the Old Testament, and its consistency that wow, it's sad.

It really, really is sad, but that's how it works. Ezekiel 38, 10, thus says Lord Yahweh, it will be in that day that thoughts will come into your heart and you will devise an evil plan. Now, this is being addressed to a foreign king.

That's 38, 10. And then 38, 16 says, and you will come up against my people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It will be in the last days that I will bring you against my land. So that the nations may know me when I prove myself holy through you before their eyes, O Gog.

Did you catch that? Sound familiar? Like Pharaoh, Romans 9? It will be in the last days that I will bring you against my land so that the nations may know me when I prove myself holy through you before their eyes.

It sounds like God has the right to use a foreign king or a foreign nation to actually destroy them, to make them do things. To do what? So that the nations may know me when I prove myself holy through you before their eyes.

The demonstration of the holiness of God. Again, how many synergists honestly, honestly would say that the demonstration of God's holiness is more important than the autonomous will of a human being? What percentage?

Very small, very small. Habakkuk 1 .5, 1 .5 and six. See among the nations and look, be also astonished, be astounded, because I am doing something in your days, you will not believe it if it was recounted to you.

For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation who walks on the breadth of the land to possess dwelling places which are not theirs. So I'm doing this. But the Chaldeans would say that this is their choice.

This is what they're doing. No, God says, I'm doing it. I'm bringing it. See folks, you can't read the Old Testament text without recognizing that all of the actions of kings and warriors and nations fall under the sovereign decree of God.

You just, you can't do it. It's right there in front of you. It just must not get read much, or people read it with such thick glasses on that they filter it out, I suppose. 1 Samuel 2 .25, if one man sins against another, God will mediate for him, but if a man sins against Yahweh, who can pray for him?

But they would not listen to the voice of their father because they had autonomous free will. That's the Synergist Provisionist translation based upon the French. Not what it says, is it? No, but they would not listen to the voice of their father for Yahweh desired to put them to death.

No, no, Yahweh would no. Yahweh does not desire to put anyone to death. Isn't that what it says in Ezekiel 18? Well, there was a context, Ezekiel 18, and the Jeremiah, you know, the saying of the people, eating of the fruit and teeth set on edge.

There was actually a context that it's almost always completely ignored. 1 Samuel 2 .25 says, for Yahweh desired to put them to death. And so, he caused it that they would not listen to the voice of their father.

God can't do that. Yes, first of all, God can do it. I would hope everyone would at least admit, whether you believe that God would ever do that, that you would at least admit that God has the capacity to accomplish this if he chose to.

You can go, he would never do that. Okay, but secondly, but they would not listen to the voice of their father. Do you think for even a second that we might be talking about sinners here? You think we might be talking about sinners?

And do you think maybe possibly that God can punish sinners at any time he wants to? That he can bring sinners to destruction any time he wants to? Do you think that's possible, maybe? Just a little bit?

So, if God chooses the time when he brings his judgment to bear, isn't that up to God who, oh, what's the description, does all things well? See, this isn't the philosophy that's gonna get you a place at the table of academia today, but it is what the New Testament teaches.

It's what the Old Testament teaches. Those were good texts. They would have been great texts to be addressed. As far as I can tell, again, maybe all of these texts were fully addressed in the video and they just felt that was so boring that they weren't gonna put it out.

Maybe. I get the distinct feeling, honestly, that nobody opened a Bible and looked at any of those texts. That's my gut feeling.

I would say that it depends on how you define predestination. I think that since God knows all things, he knows the end from the beginning. When he elected to create this universe, he knew how it would turn out.

And when he elected to create this universe, he knew that, say, somebody like Adolf Hitler would not believe and somebody like Billy Graham would, but Adolf Hitler freely disbelieved and Billy Graham freely believed.

So, it's not a matter of the fact that God is making all the choices other than to say that when God created the universe, he knew these choices would be made.

Okay, so what we have here is a form, I guess, of Molinism. You know, sometimes Frank is not real clear in his expressions. He's trying to be a Molinist. Geisler wasn't one. So, trying to, this knowingly predetermining and predeterminedly knowing and stuff, that wasn't Geisler's thing.

That was Geisler's thing, but that's not Molinism, at least not in its current expression like you'd get from the Molos and the people of Trinity. And he's got all those guys sitting down the row from him in this video.

So, I think he's trying to say that. He's trying to say God knows what anyone would do given a certain circumstance and that God can control those circumstances. We're actually gonna be looking at something from William Lane Craig in just a moment that's along the same lines.

But I think that's what he's trying to put out here. None of that comes to me in the text that we just read. I mean, this is just like, yeah, but the question was this and your answer is not this. So, why is that?

Well, because that's 99 of the time that's what you get from synergies.

But people are freely choosing whether to believe or not to believe. That way, God is not the author of evil, which is the main problem in my view with the hard five-point Calvinist view. It makes God more like Allah than Yahweh.

Now, I'll be honest, all due respect, Frank, you don't know Reformed theology and you have no interest in learning it and you don't know Islamic theology and seemingly have no interest in learning it.

That's norm-speaking and that has rhetorical punch. If you'd ever step out and defend your public statements in debate, you'd discover that the rhetorical punch would not last very long at all. It doesn't have much actual weight.

I've taken the time to not only study Khadr in Islamic theology, I've debated Muslims in public in South Africa on the subject. So, that kind of a statement you just made there doesn't carry any weight because it's based on ignorance.

It's not based on a serious study of the two issues that you just brought up because if you understood Reformed theology and if you understood Islamic theology, you wouldn't say what you just said, but you did.

So, there you go.

I'd like to add on to that real quick and just say that when it comes to the issue of sovereign, I agree with everything that Frank Turek just said.

That's a shame, to be honest with you. I would hope that there'd be some correction there, that maybe somebody on the panel would know something about Islamic theology and something about Reformed theology and accurately represent it, maybe.

That'd be a good thing at a Christian conference or whatever this thing is.

Predestined to. Yeah, every Christian should affirm predestination because the Bible talks about predestination. The Bible talks about the elect. One of the differences between Calvinists and many non-Calvinists is how all that works.

Is it individual predestination to salvation or is it a corporate election where there is the corporate body? In Ephesians 1, it said.

The problem is, of course, even if you try for the corporate view, which he's gonna try doing in Ephesians 1, which, again, has an element of truth to it, but it's such a partial element that it misses the text.

Yes, is there a corporate elect? Yes. Are they known to God? They have to be for substitution and atonement to be real. Okay? So everything in Ephesians 1 that's gonna talk about the elect, you know, adoption, forgiveness, these are personal things that the individuals that make up the group experience.

So try to go, well, you know, God knows this group, you know, and then it's up to us to get into the group type thing. Again, it's just a shallow, fallacious way of, again, trying to protect the autonomous will of man.

It's the ultimate theological goal of synergism. And it's exactly what we saw when we looked at the confession of Dositheus, right? So it's nothing new. This is, you know, if our reading of Romans 9 is correct, this has been the conversation from the start and will always be the conversation until God ends the conversation by saying, this is what I meant and stop arguing about it.

As you were chosen in him, now it doesn't say you were chosen to be in him as my Calvinist brothers who I love, who are my brothers, might think about it.

So make sure you understand what's being said. Again, this is a basic standard dodge, and I think it's a dodge, but you're chosen to be in him. You're not chosen to be in him, you're chosen in him. But the direct object of the choose is you.

And they seem to skip that part. The direct object of choose in Ephesians 1 is you. The realm in which that choosing takes place is in Christ, but it doesn't change the personal nature. And what they wanna do with class election is to get rid of the personal aspect.

That's why they cannot hold consistently to penal substitutionary atonement, because penal substitutionary atonement is personal. Election is personal. PSA is a reformed doctrine. So when evangelicals try to hold to PSA while rejecting election, they end up making a mess of things, truly making a mess of things.

So just catch what's being said, because sometimes it's so quick, and I'll just mention once again, really would have been interesting to apply this to maybe the texts that were actually asked in the question.

You're chosen in him.

So I think of a corporate group, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, right, a group of people, and that's the elect, and you can be in the elect, or you cannot be in the elect. But if you're not in the elect, then you're in the group that's prepared for destruction.

And so it's a I don't know about you, but that looked like an edit. I hadn't noticed that before. But it was almost like there was a real fast edit there. I'd be interested in finding out if that was true or not.

I don't know, just happened to be watching it carefully and went, huh, that's strange. But you're in the group chosen for destruction. Right. And outside of grace, that's what everyone's choice would be.

But that's not what Ephesians 1's talking about. You didn't get that from Ephesians 1. You got that from your theology, and now you're trying to shoehorn it into Ephesians chapter one, just like you do that with Romans 9, John 6, whatever text, John 10, John 17, all the texts that so plainly present God's freedom in choosing his sheep, in choosing individuals, and Paul's enduring all things for the sake of the elect.

They actually exist. They are known to God, not just by looking down the corridors of time, but by his own choice, because they were dead in their trespasses and sins. They wanted nothing to do with God, but God, by his grace, raises them to spiritual life.

Corporate group, you can choose, on my view, which to be a part of. The thing I wanted to say about sovereignty there that I think is so important is that oftentimes we think of sovereignty as having baked into it the notion that God actively determines philosophical determinism of things in this world.

Did anybody look up the Bible verses?

Even for a second? I read them too. We looked at them. What did it involve? Exactly what he's gonna say, it doesn't involve. See what he defaults to? He defaults to, well, it's philosophical determinism, and so I've got my philosophical ways of responding to philosophical questions.

Here's where I simply say to you, the reformed submit philosophy to biblical exegesis, the non-reformed submit biblical exegesis to philosophy, and we are being given an example right there, right there.

Why not go to the scriptures? Why not let them speak? You wouldn't have gotten this conclusion from reading those texts. The person that submitted the question gave the references. They took the time to write them out.

Sovereignty has never meant that. Sovereignty has a definition. It's a sovereign is a king. A sovereign is someone who's in control, and we know what a king is. A king is someone who's in control of his realm.

In his realm, he can do as he pleases. He can step in. He can dole out rewards and punishments, and these are all things that God is and God does, but that doesn't mean at any point that just because we're talking about God that suddenly philosophical determinism is happening.

Philosophical determinism. Again, you see how different it would be if these guys were actually forced to stay in scripture? I think that is really honestly one of the fundamental differences between us.

I have said from the start, you know, I mentioned to someone recently, if you want to keep your ministry small, you make sure to be reformed, address Roman Catholicism and Islam. So that's how Rich and I have been doing it.

Well, I've been doing that, and he's just had to endure it. From the start, my emphasis has been I believe these things because I have to. When I talk to the Mormon, I direct them to scripture. When I talk to the Muslim, I direct them to scripture.

When I talk to the Jehovah's Witness, I direct them to scripture. I can't all of a sudden change everything to adopt this kind of perspective where scripture is not the source, the foundation at all. Yeah, Rich is saying not a single one of them has a Bible over them.

I know. I mean, how many people have I debated where they didn't even bring a Bible? Now, these guys would bring a Bible, okay? But in this kind of, where they're giving their standard stump speech responses, what it demonstrates is their stump speech responses did not arise out of exegesis.

They arise out of tradition. And this is just demonstrating that rather clearly. He just said, well, sovereignty didn't mean that. What do you mean sovereignty didn't mean that? It meant in every single stinking verse that was cited to you, didn't it?

How many texts do we need to go to? Yahweh does what he pleases in the heavens and the earth because he made the heavens and the earth. They're his realm. It's right there. How can you not see it? Because I don't wanna see it.

It's uncomfortable to see because my traditions just have no room for it.

Where at the ultimate level, genuine free will isn't happening or something like that. Instead, what is different about God when it comes to sovereignty is his realm. No longer is it a spot of ground in Europe somewhere.

Now it's the entire cosmos. And in the entire cosmos, God can step in. He can do as he pleases. He can dole out rewards and punishments. But I don't know why we would ever bake into that definition something that I don't see it as native to that definition, which is God is philosophically determining everything that happens in the deterministic sense.

Okay, his focus is philosophy, philosophy, philosophy. Don't ask me about these Bible passages. God can do the big stuff out there, out in the cosmos. Great, fine. But if he does stuff individually, oh, come on now.

Except one of those texts, what did one of those texts say? But they would not listen to the voice of their father. Is that cosmos? Is that like galaxies colliding and black holes and stuff way out there someplace?

No, this is individual who would not listen to their father. Why? Because Yahweh desired to put them to death. Is that sovereignty? Well, he can dole out punishments. Yeah, this is punishment. He desired to put them to death.

That's exactly what it says. And, you know, I will bring you against my land so that the nations may know me when I prove myself holy through you before their eyes. God wants to demonstrate his holiness before the nations by destroying a nation.

That includes individuals. That's sovereignty. Yeah, he came to not listen to the people for it was a turn of events from Yahweh that he might establish his word. That word was against that king. That's sovereignty.

That's in the events of mankind. It has personal impact upon individuals. It's real easy to say, oh, it's all out there. It's all the big stuff, you know, but no, not philosophical determinism. Okay, call it what you want.

What's this? What's this in the Bible?

Well, it can't be philosophical determinism. Can you explain Jacob I loved but Esau I hated? Yeah, it's coming from the book of Obadiah,.

I believe, talking about the nations. So God can hate Nazi Germany and not hate all the individuals. So it's not him saying he actually hates the person. He's hating the nation. And even like Douglas Moo, who's a Calvinist, knows that when that shows up in Romans, it's referring to election.

So Paul is using that in the sense I've elected Jacob, not Esau. So it's using hyperbolic exaggerated language. Really?

I wonder if Doug Moo would agree with that. You know, I've for a long time appreciated Doug Moo's commentary on Romans. I'm not sure where he is these days. Seem like some weird stuff happened during COVID, but weird stuff happened everywhere during COVID.

But yeah, it definitely has to do with election. But in Romans 9, what's it being referred to? What are the examples? Well, it was just about nations, which is why it's then applied to Jacob and Esau as a demonstration of how before they did anything good or evil, not the nations that come from them, before they did anything good or evil, it was said to her.