ROMANS

[@onedayatatime980]

Dr. Flowers, glory to God, I have grown spiritually by leaps and bounds since finding this channel. Thank you for all that you are doing. Heavenly Father, please continue to bless Leighton and his family. Keep them from the evil one and let their faith remain strong and not fail. May he remain focused, steadfast, and humbled in his calling. Help him where he is weak and encourage him whenever doubt arises. May he always know that he is being used to be a tremendous blessing to many and that a great reward awaits him in heaven. In Jesus name, amen. Blessings and love to you my brother in Christ.

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@@Echarterisc No matter how many times you copy and paste, the verse you say no one can find is Genesis 4:1.

[@ErikSvansbo]

Amen

[@jerz8289]

Please read the Full Counsel of God before acknowledging this man as a teacher, whom will be judged most harshly for leading people like you astray. Read my post at the top of the comments and carefully meditate on the passages of Scripture I cite.

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

Love this format! Please do more of these fairly short, outlined systematic arguments for us simple-minded calvinists to easily follow :p. I can't sit through the 3 hour interviews but would love more concise presentations like this.

[@DiGrace44]

This format is clear and straightforward. Thank you, Dr. Flowers.

[@BenjaminButler-zs1cm]

@@Echarterisc Genesis 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Why would God even say this to Cain if he’s a "reprobate"?

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@Echarterisc Since you can't find any Scripture that Cain is Adam's son in the entire Bible, I found it for you: Genesis 4:1 NIV [1] Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” That's pretty clear language to indicate that Cain is Adam's son. As for why Cain wasn't included in the genealogy of Adam, neither were any of the other descendents who weren't in the direct line to Noah. Before making grand statements about things that nobody can find in the entire Bible, at least look in the most likely spot for it to exist, like the conception and birth of Cain. Were you just thinking that everyone would take your word for it, and nobody would check? I found the verse in the first place I looked.

[@AndrewJohnH]

@Echarterisc Again, these are very easily answered. You don't have to make up a completely new and wacky theory of Cain being Satan's son. 1. You say that the euphemism for sex in Genesis 4:1, which led to Eve being pregnant, and thanking *the Lord* (not Satan) for helping her bring forth a son, isn't proof Cain was Adam's son. But your supposed proof that Cain was Satan's seed doesn't even mention Cain by name, so it has LESS explanatory power, and your theory is LESS explicitly stated than the one that Cain is Adam's child. 2. We know Jesus is Eve's seed that triumphs over Satan's seed, and Cain is not still alive when Jesus walked the earth. In fact, He tells the Pharisees that they are trying to kill Him because they are doing the works of their father, the devil. This much more explicitly paints them as Satan's seed. 3. Why wasn't Cain in the Genesis 5 genealogy? Because it is a direct line from Adam to Noah, and ONLY the direct descendants propogating that line are included, and no others. 4. Why does Cain have his own genealogy in Genesis 4? I don't have a sure answer on that, but it could be to show that God was true to His Word and didn't allow Cain to be killed, as He promised Cain when Cain cried out to Him in fear. But whatever it is, being in one genealogy isn't proof of not being related to another.

[@AndrewJohnH]

@Echarterisc I'll respond to your "points" in order, but I can see that you're having trouble understanding the very clear and simple things I have been saying (evidenced by asking the same questions again that have already been answered) so I don't hold out a ton of hope that you'll understand what I'm saying now. My hope is that anyone who is reading our comments will see that some are grounded in Scripture, while others are grounded in fancy and ignore the points made against them, and will use their wisdom to avoid falling into the trap you seem to have fallen into. 1. Eve didn't say anywhere in Scripture that ANYONE was Adam's son. But Scripture itself uses a euphemism for sex that connects Adam's fatherhood to Cain's sonhood. The same euphemism that is used for Seth, by the way. And the same euphemism used for Cain having a son. None of the mothers have to explicitly state, "Oh, you're the father," in Scripture, for them to be the father. That's a rule that you've made up, and that doesn't actually impose itself on how we know something is true. 2. If you didn't assume based on the context of my statement that I was talking about Jesus' human life, walking around with His disciples and sharing the good news of the Kingdom of God, and the time that He called the Pharisees sons of Satan, then you're being purposely obtuse or argumentative. And frankly, based on what you've been saying, one of us certainly ought to study our Bible again from the beginning, and get as far as Genesis 4:1 and realize that Adam was Cain's father. And if you're trying to say that Cain was walking around alive on earth 3,000 to 4,000 years later, I don't see anywhere in Scripture that points to that. The longest he could have lived would be until the flood, unless you're telling me he married one of Noah's daughters to get onto the ark. ;) 3. Did I say that the genealogy "jumps to" Noah? No, that's a straw man of my argument. I said it was the direct line from Adam to Noah, which of course would have gone through Seth, and many others, but only included the ones who were directly continuing that line to Noah. (Hence the points made in the genealogy that each lived longer and had other sons and daughters, but doesn't list those other names.) That was very clear in what I said before. So either you're ignorant of basic English, or you're choosing to feign ignorance because it suits you to do so. 4. This is ridiculous and unproven logic. Hard to know where to begin in disproving something that was never proven, and is just a restatement of your assumption. To answer your 3 questions: 1. I literally already answered this, but here'smore clarification. Jesus called the Pharisees children of the devil, and a brood of vipers. A BROOD (spawn) of VIPERS serpents). Hiw much more specific do you need to get? 2. I already answered this as well, and (over)clarified it to the extreme degree. Genesis 4:1. Therefore, thank you for conceding defeat. 3. You can't. You might twist something that doesn't say that, to get it to try to mean what you want, in which case, I will try to untwist it. I will agree with the Bible. But your view does not agree with the Bible. I have clearly shown that. And you do not cease in arguing with me. So you are asking something of me (yet again) which you are unwilling to do yourself.

[@LawlessNate]

Nice! This is a very useful format of video. This is something I could see myself linking to someone and reasonably expect them to possibly watch it. Great work!

[@SheepDog1974]

I love these short concise formats. Excellent narration, biblical references and video info graphics. Truth and biblical exegesis 🙏 Thank you Leighton.

[@yolandasoro]

Amen brother! God bless you and your ministry! To God be all the Glory!

[@juliegoos7049]

Very well done!! Thank you so much Dr Flowers! I appreciate that you are educating us on this. Very clearly laid out.

[@noybiznatch]

Leighton, it didn't hit me until recently that I realized... you are my pastor. This is not to say that I don't read the scriptures for myself, or that I won't be like the Bereans and test everything being taught. After watching much of your teachings, I trust you and your spirit. You have a love for the truth and rightly dividing the Word. God bless you and your family.

[@SheilaSmith-z8g]

What I most appreciate about teachers like Flowers and Mike Winger is an invitation to THINK more broadly and deeply on scripture. When our firsthand knowledge of scripture is small, we are not going to see the contradictions of our preachers; we will not notice the cognitive disodence; or the claims that have no scripture support. Discovering God's truth requires a desire for truth, time and effort of study, eyesand ears wide open....and the humility to admit we have made a mistake.

[@davidstephen2827]

@@SheilaSmith-z8g I glad you have the humility to admit yours. Thank you.

[@jerz8289]

You are exactly right... and I hope everyone will scroll up to the top of this message board and prepare to read many verses of Scripture that confirm God's Sovereignty and calls out the error and fallacy of so-called teachers like this... who seem to have no idea how to really understand or interpret Scripture.

[@andrewclark6394]

Great video, concise, well argued with supporting references from scripture. I read the Bible before I knew what Calvinism was and what I see is a story about relationships. God treats us like we treat people we are in relationship with, only without our sin and brokenness. He loves first and foremost, giving us everything we need to turn to him, but if our hearts are hard and we reject him, what more can he do but give us over to the consequences of our own actions?

[@charliep5072]

Keep fighting this heresy. You have helped me tremendously with the subject that had done more harm to my faith than anything.

[@davidstephen2827]

@@charliep5072 what heresy are you talking about? Could you be more specific. Dr Flowers covers a number of topics. Is there a specific one the historical church has deemed heretical through one of the ecumenical councils? Or is it something current? I am just curious.

[@jerz8289]

Heresy? You sir are the one who must omit many many verses in order to bolster your arminian view

[@jerz8289]

If you are willing to be humble, please look at my post at the top of this thread. Carefully read each of those verses and then tell me that you still beleive you had something to do with your salvation, or that God really isn't SOVEREIGN

[@charliep5072]

Brothers, I apologize if my words offend you, but I have studied Calvinism extensively. Boil it down and it teaches that God is the author of evil as opposed to evil being a consequence of our free will. It also means that God creates some people strictly to go to hell because that is what he determined. This means it is no fault of their own. Also, Calvinism puts an unnecessary and inaccurate definition of sovereignty over God’s goodness. I do have to find plausible and contextual explanations for a very few verses. However, the absolute majority of the Bible is contrary to Calvinism.

[@jerz8289]

@ It’s not Calvinism, it’s the full counsel of God. Do you think you know enough about God to infer things Scripture does not teach? Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Does Scripture lie? In the Arminian viewpoint you must ignore critical verses that state that God is Sovereign. Satan can only do what God allows him to do. Nothing that happens to you is outside of Gods will, at the same time WE ARE responsible for our real choices- and our decisions to be disobedient incurs the discipline of God (if you are born again), otherwise He allows you to get worse and worse, so when judgment day comes, you’ll be without excuse. The bottom line is this: all deserve eternal hell. The Bible teaches that God has mercy on some, and allows them to find Him, be convicted of their sin, repent and put their trust in Jesus. They are the Elect, chosen from before the foundation of the world . “I will not obey God because He did not elect me!” Said NOONE EVER. Only a fool would say that. Our election is made evident over the course of time in accordance with His Sovereing will. Here is something to chew on: if man has free will, then our salvation was NOT sure… Judas could have repented, Caiaphas could have had a change of heart after Pirate had Him scourged. Or, Pilate could have allowed Jesus to go free. BE honest, do you really think God left our salvation that was prophesied since Genesis to some kind of Cosmic chance, just so people could ultimately be in control of their destiny? How silly and sophomoric

[@ingela_injeela]

So good, and so needed, Brother.

[@JohnSmith-ug5ci]

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

[@TheRootedWord]

I appreciate that often you take a firm grasp on language.

[@AlexanderosD]

Leighton! Leighton! I was just thinking of this verse again! Something I didn't notice before! The "Love" aspect used in this verse: The nature of the love used! - Not only is it NOT an election to salvation, but it is a "love" that is consistent with the theme of Scripture and God's character. God stretches out His hand to a stiff-necked people, Israel always grows hard of heart, Israel continues to go after other gods and God returns them to Himself, Israel continues to resist the Holy Spirit, and on and on. God continues loving Israel, God CHOSE Israel, but they continue to be reprobate. God is "loving", "electing" a reprobate nation! But God has CHOSEN....to LOVE Israel - to ELECT them FOR a purpose: the purpose of bringing about the Messiah who would bring that love to all the other nations, INCLUDING ESAU! A funny thing to consider as well, the Scripture doesn't say anything about Esau's personal faith. It's very possible that Esau himself may actually be with the Lord right now and we could see him when the Lord returns. 😂 Now that would be really awkward for Calvinists.

[@CynVee]

Excellent analysis. Thank you. This makes perfect sense in light of the inestimable love of God and His perfect attributes.

[@Echarterisc]

@CynVee, I believe God hates Esau is not literal because God is love, but God is not pleased with Esau because Esau is a reprobate and a child of the devil. Esau is not saved because God even cursed him in the book of Malachi.. I also believe that Esau and Jacob are both pedestined before they are born because God knows that Jacob is one of elect therefore he is predestined for salvation and also for service, while Esau is one of the reprobates and therfore he is predestined for damnation...

[@Echarterisc]

@CynVee, What Leighton and the Calvinist missed is that: Jesus revealed that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. The elect and the reprobates.. All the elect are predestined to be saved because they are the children of God literally, and all the reprobates are predestined to be burned in fire because they are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a son of God as revealed by Luke in Luke 3:38 Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent as mentioned in Genesis 3:15 Cain is not the son of Adam. You cannot find any scripture that Cain is the son of Adam in the entire bible, but you can find a verse thst Cain is the son of the devil. Cain is not included in the the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5, because Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4..

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@@Echarterisc Copy and paste everywhere, but the verse you say no one can find is still going to be Genesis 4:1.

[@jbrubaker9399]

Your clearest and best video yet.

[@JadDragon]

Great study, thank you. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[@sydney.g.sloangammagee8181]

Again, excellent clarification between stating how Calvinism misinterprets verses to suit their explanations instead of Scripture supports scripture to answer the difficulties properly - not how man interprets but how God intends! Nice when you can slow down & state things smoothly - clear up confusion - we really need this! You have such a calm, soothing way that you present things - avoid the pressure of debates with those whom you will never be able to alter their opinion. God bless your ministry, Leighton !!

[@jerz8289]

Please read the Full Counsel of God before acknowledging this man as a teacher, whom will be judged most harshly for leading people like you astray. Read my post at the top of the comments and carefully meditate on the passages of Scripture I cite.

[@PastorJasonHenrichsen]

When talking with Calvinists, I often restate their position to them in a way with which they agree, and then summarize by saying "okay, and you feel comfortable saying this to God's face?" 😅

[@TheRomans9Guy]

lol!

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

What's their reaction?

[@PastorJasonHenrichsen]

@@lonelyguyofficial8335 it's varied widely. If still in cage stage, they usually just switch gears with another attack to any questioning of their dogma, but with some of the older, more thoughtful ones, I've noticed it kind of makes them think.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

I show them what they do to actual salvation related scripture, and then say you have to be really sure that’s what the scripture says right? Eg Bible: And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved. Calvinism: And it shall come to pass that only those predestined by the lord in eternity past will call on his name to be saved. Bible: If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Calvinism: If you’re one of the elect from eternity past, you will confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God will regenerate your heart so you can believe that God raised Him from the dead, for you were predestined to be saved.

[@Brandon.Germany]

Yes, I feel comfortable telling God that he is sovereign.

[@flynnhuseby3431]

Amen! Excellent and biblical explanation!

[@grannyblinda]

Context never bothers a Calvinist … Augustine and Calvin have already decided what they have to believe!

[@joeinterrante7873]

You are so out of your understanding

[@ryleighloughty3307]

The Bible teaches that human beings are totally depraved; there is no good in us. Before creation, God chose whom he would elect to his heavenly kingdom, and Jesus died for them. Those whom God has chosen cannot resist his choice nor fall away from his choice. Praise be to God!

[@mysteriouschannel2391]

​@@ryleighloughty3307.. Where in the Bible said man is "Totally Depraved" can you show us?

[@ryleighloughty3307]

@@mysteriouschannel2391 Are there scriptural passages stating that man is not totally depraved? Passages that state there is good in man? Thank you.

[@mysteriouschannel2391]

@@ryleighloughty3307 .. Answer my question. Don't ask me what I didn't said. I'm asking you what you says.

[@HighDef21]

Awesome breakdown.

[@Echarterisc]

@HighDef21, I believe God hates Esau is not literal because God is love, but God is not pleased with Esau because Esau is a reprobate and a child of the devil. Esau is not saved because God even cursed him in the book of Malachi.. I also believe that Esau and Jacob are both pedestined before they are born because God knows that Jacob is one of elect therefore he is predestined for salvation and also for service, while Esau is one of the reprobates and therfore he is predestined for damnation...

[@ingela_injeela]

- That builds up.

[@HighDef21]

@@Echarterisc I don’t think you have a biblical base to stand on with that thought process. Just because God foreknows doesn’t mean he predestines.

[@Echarterisc]

@@HighDef21 , Please read the parable of Wheat and Tares until verse 43..

[@terryjones7616]

Romans 9:18-20 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

[@DA-yd2ny]

Now read Isaiah 55 and let God open your eyes to the truth. Hint: God doesn’t chose to give eternal life arbitrarily or those who perform , He choses those who CHOOSE to trust in Christ. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE JEW SEEK GOD BY OBSERVING THE LAW - GOD CHOOSES THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIS MERCY AND GRACE. This is what he meant when he said the he chooses to save whom he will. Unfortunately many churches adopted Calvin’s religious interpretation of theses verses

[@Adam231-0]

@@DA-yd2ny yup hammer this doctrine of the devil into the ground, I believe everyone is predestined according to Colossians 1:1-22 yet not everyone goes to heaven why!? Bc they freely reject God predestined the Vechile for salvation not the individual person the vechile is his cross for sinners that’s predestined unmovable yet the choice isn’t

[@davidstephen2827]

I think this is a well reasoned explanation from Dr. Flowers. The question I have regards Paul dealing with those who object to his teaching in Roman’s 9. With Dr Flowers explanation, all objections are removed. There is no reason to talk about the Potter’s freedom. How does Dr Flowers deal with this conundrum? I would be interested in an explanation. Maybe he has dealt with this elsewhere.

[@SheepDog1974]

Yes. Leighton had discussed this matter of the Potter. Look through some videos. Or read his book

[@TheTrueRoad]

14¶What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

[@nonconformist4802]

Exactly

[@DA-yd2ny]

Now tell me that you read it in context to the letter and the Gospel and understand what Paul meant. I bet you are parroting after the last preacher you heard parroting after Augustine or Calvin’s century old garbage.

[@nonconformist4802]

@@DA-yd2ny Oh really, was that your best response? Must be from the last anti-Christ preacher that you have learned to paroting this statement. Correct?

[@Ajnarrowpathdigital]

And who is he merciful to? "All" them that call upon him in faith.

[@primeobjective5469]

Exceptional. Well said.

[@Echarterisc]

@primeobjective5469, What Leighton and the Calvinist missed is that: Jesus revealed that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. The elect and the reprobates.. All the elect are predestined to be saved because they are the children of God literally, and all the reprobates are predestined to be burned in fire because they are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a son of God as revealed by Luke in Luke 3:38 Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent as mentioned in Genesis 3:15 Cain is not the son of Adam. You cannot find any scripture that Cain is the son of Adam in the entire bible, but you can find a verse thst Cain is the son of the devil. Cain is not included in the the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5, because Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4..

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@@Echarterisc The answer is still Genesis 4:1.

[@Melynn13]

I saved this one in my notes. Thank you for your work and care.

[@dougmartin8664]

Well done! Good explanation of Malachi!

[@tedprice5828]

They shall have eternal life.......Anyone who does not believe is condemned already.

[@kirbydavis-b1o]

Very good lesson. I am still with team Calvin! I do think all should study this because of all the miss understanding out here. You did ok on this one.... I really think I will get your book too. sounds like a good read?

[@DA-yd2ny]

Why not reading and studying Pau’s letters yourself?

[@juliapaone561]

Why do people from both camps get so confrontational and antagonistic? This is an important issue, but disagree out of love. I am a Calvinist but I have a friend who is an Arminian, and we simply agree to disagree. She understands the Gospel. I think she is wrong about some things, but please read 1Corinthians 13 all about love.

[@sonnypierce9783]

An excellent commentary. You have used the method of interprating Scripture (which is not done by many) - Scripture interprates Scripture (1Cor 2:13)

[@Pygapascoe160]

3:25 God did NOT tell the Edomites not to despise Edomites. He told the Israelites in deuteronomy 23:7 not to despise the edomites.

[@mavrickone22]

Nicely exained. Thanks for this

[@jogo8261]

Not that I necessarily agree with everything that Calvin taught, but I really feel like the 13th first in this chapter is not what supports the doctrine of election. Since we’re discussing context, you can’t separate Romans nine from Romans eight. Romans eight ends with the assurance of salvation for the believer, Romans nine begins with the fact that Israel, God’s chosen people have rejected Christ and are not saved. So how can we as believers maintain our assurance in God‘s ability to save us if his own chosen people have rejected him and are not saved? That’s the purpose and context of Romans nine. It seems really, really clear that it’s not of him who will, human desire, nor of him who runs, human effort, but of him who calls. In order to refute what the ninth chapter of Romans is clearly saying, you have to break it into chunks and look at the verses out of context. If you just allow it to read how it reads it’s pretty clear.

[@jeffl2684]

Yeah this whole argument comes down to answering the question. How does man come to have faith in Christ to begin with? Was it a gift from God (grace)? Or of man’s own will? I would tell you that my will was most certainly completely involved with my decision to put my faith in Christ, but I believe that it was God himself who changed my heart that allowed me to willfully make that decision. If God needs to change me BEFORE I’m able to willfully believe then it truly is Him that gets all the glory…this is election. Do I understand why he chooses one vs another…no. Do any of us deserve to be saved…no.

[@NuManXplore]

Great video!

[@barkwahlmerg]

context makes it mean the opposite of what the words say! love it

[@r3aperrising984]

Idioms often mean the opposite of the words included in them. When we say "go break a leg," we don't mean literally break your leg; we actually mean the opposite--succeed so well that you get put into the cast! Idioms just work this way. Nothing fanciful about it. Context is key.

[@jeffreybomba]

Why even get caught up in the idiom? The first original passage flat out tells us that it is dealing with nations, and the second one written centuries later confirms that. The radical change in Esau after Jacob’s departure should also be a clue that God had not forsaken him. If you want a great example of flipping context, look up every instance of the word SEEK. Romans 3 is quoting 2, nearly identical Psalms (like maybe God was making a point) written about the FOOL THAT REJECTS GOD. The rest of the i stances reflect Romans 1 and you see God make Himself known, the people understand, the people reject, they BECOME useless/deaf/blind (not born that way), and God gives them over. BUT Paul is really giving a whole new meaning to it in Romans 3 that uncovers God MYSTERY and turns everything else on the subject upside down, right? NOPE!

[@bobbobb4804]

When Jesus says to pluck out our eyes if they lead us to sin, is he being literal? No.

[@jeffreybomba]

@ I am not a Calvinist, but I must say that I have heard people on both sides of every debate use that passage when ever they want to ignore details of a passage, or turn something that is clearly not metaphorical into metaphor. A Calvinist might pull it out when they want to ignore the present tense and the fact that Paul is addressing you/I/we in Romans 2-7, then a Condition Security proponent might use it at the end of Romans 8.

[@ErikSvansbo]

Thank you so much!

[@sofoniasgonzalez3615]

Paul says who are you to question God

[@mauisam1]

Wow, very well done. I just subscribed (and of course liked) because I see the wisdom in your explanation of Romans 9. Although you almost lost me a couple of times, but you quickly explained or gave definitions of words I do not usually use to explain Gods definitions of Love and Hate in Romans 9. That might help explain ( only a little) God and Jacob wrestling, but a future video on that would be helpful as well.

[@hendrikjansevanrensburg8337]

My friend, when i read the bible, i get a picture. When you (Dr) tells me what i red i get a different picture.??? 1 John 2 : 27.

[@nonconformist4802]

Exactly!!!

[@davidgatzke8337]

I like your explanation of Mal. 1

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

15:18 AMEN! It is so fascinating to me how some believers can become convinced to embrace a doctrine which unavoidably brings into question the very character of the God they worship. And which then forces them to defend his nature from the accusations their own doctrine. And this is even to the point that they can no longer be assured of God's true love for them personally. Something which they once readily accepted before becoming Calvinists. Any doctrine which robs men of the confidence they are truly loved by their creator is, at it's core... demonic. Satan cannot prevent a believer from spending eternity in heaven with God. BUT, if he can make them question God's character, his trustworthiness, or his love for them personally, he can effectively spoil the relationship which Jesus gave his life to make possible for men on Earth. If you doubt the love God has for you is 'genuine' and consider the love you have for him may not be sufficient or intended to last... there is no basis for any relationship. Satan loves that about Calvinism.

[@terminat1]

The Bible is clear that God has to do 100% of the work to save someone. Faith itself is work.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@terminat1 No one argues against the fact that it is only God who saves. I'm curious. If the Bible is so "clear" that faith is a work, why do the vast majority of believers not believe that to be true?

[@terminat1]

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT Because they're not reading the Bible carefully and God hasn't opened their eyes. If a person's faith contributed to their salvation, then the individual would be partly responsible. God alone wouldn't receive the credit.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@terminat1 So, your seem to be saying that it is you who have been 'enlightened' on this matter and the overwhelming majority of other believing Christians have been so far intentionally denied this insight by God. That's interesting. Sounds kind of Gnostic to me. Actually, if Calvinism is true, they can all read till their eyes fail and the only persons who will agree with you are those few people God has pre-destined to 'enlighten', (against their will). And, if they do not agree it is only evidence they are not chosen to be saved, or. at least, not saved yet. We agree that it is not faith that saves. It is God and God gets all the 'credit'. No one takes credit for accepting to receive a free, undeserved, un-earned, gift. And God has promised to save whosoever believes, and can be trusted to honor his word. And , since there is no scripture which ever says anyone is "born" unable to respond positively to God or the Gospel, anyone can believe and God will save them. Some will believe, some will not, but anyone can. That's why it's Good News for all men. The angels did not appear to the Shepherds and proclaim "This is gonna be great..... for some of you"

[@terminat1]

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT Man's will is sold out to sin and Satan by nature. How does a baby believe? The Bible is replete with verses which teach that man is dead in sins and unable to respond to the gospel in a pleasing way. God receives all the credit in salvation. Nobody will ever accept Christ or believe the gospel in of themselves. God has to do it for them. Salvation is of grace.

[@bryanpratt5850]

Honest question: when you use your own personal freewill to do anything good, is it wrong to take credit for those good works? By taking credit, I mean taking responsibility or giving yourself an “atta boy.” Is there a righteous sense of pride in your choice. Those good works that we chose to do, does that in anyway merit a reward?

[@gregbellins4189]

As Paul wrote, read Philippians 4:16 For even while I was in Thessalonica, you provided for my needs again and again. 17 I am not seeking a gift but looking for the {{{fruit that may be credited to your account.}}} 18 I have all I need and more, now that I have received your gifts from Epaphroditus. They are a fragrant offering, {{{an acceptable sacrifice, and well-pleasing to God.…}}}

[@1lmetcalf]

Great question. Matthew 6:3 says, “When you give to the poor and do acts of kindness, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing [give in complete secrecy].” When we give or do acts of kindness, we shouldn’t be aspiring to have the recognition on ourselves, but for the Lord. Matthew 6:2-5 says, “When you give to someone in need, don't do as the hypocrites do-blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get.” You see, God will bless us when we are a blessing to others, but when we give in a self seeking way, our reward is limited. I’m providing this to add some context before answering your question. It’s not wrong to give yourself an “atta boy” for doing good. If you are a believer in Christ and have Him as your Lord and Saviour, then you’ll have to ask yourself if it is your own personal free will at work in your good works or if it is Christ working in you and through you inspiring you to do these good works. James explained in the book of James that “ Faith without works is died”, so as a believer, you’ll have a desire to do good works. As a believer, I always give God the glory because He deserves all the glory for the blessings in my life. It’s His wonder working power working in me allowing me to live a passionate life for Him. The good works I do, is Christ working through me because He lives in me. When I give Him the glory, He blesses me for it. When I do good works with the motivation of having God get the glory and not me, God blesses me for it. Trust me when I say, you want His blessing over your atta boy. He is so good to His children.

[@chooseChrist-e2t]

Its calvinism vs God's Word

[@jerz8289]

Sorry, with all due respect, this is a strawman arguement. Whether or not the word hatred is being used idiomatically, it does not change the context of the argument in defense of God's Sovereignty. You seem to overlook how Paul qualifies the statement in the following verses, 14-20. Arminianism is not biblical in that it must omit these following verses, or twist them out of context, which is most foolish and detrimental. Even if I was to hand Romans 9 over to you in this poorly contrived defence of free will, you still have to take on 1Peter 1-3; Rev. 17:8; Acts 18:10-11; John 6:44 & 64-65; John 15:16; Rev. 17:13-14; 1Thess. 5:9; Matt. 25:34; Col. 3:12; Psalm 65:3-4; Isaiah 65:1; Psalm 139:16; Rev. 13:8; Prov. 20:24; Romans 8:28-35; ACTS 13:48; Acts 4:27-28; Eph. 1:4-5; 1Thess. 1:4; 2Thess. 2:9-14; 1Tim. 5:21; 2Tim. 1:8-11; Jeremiah 43:11; Prov. 19:21; Isaiah 45:7.. may I suggest a more accurate translation like the NASB (where many of these are cited from. News flash, the KJV is not the most accurate version of Scripture, not because there was intentional error, but they only had Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum and other fragments from the Received Texts to reference from. Todays translations take into account RT and the MT, which include older and more substantial copies of fully vetted Holy Scripture) If you are honest and forthright, you will leave that Arminian error and embrace the FULL COUNSEL OF GOD. Calvinism is a misnomer. He had nothing to do with the Sovereignty of God, he only expounded upon it. We understand that God desires that all come to repentance; that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked; that Jesus says He stands at the door and knocks... there are countless verses of man's soul competency. Our decisions are real, our choices have effect on outcomes, BUT God has ordained it all- BECAUSE He refuses to be put in a puny, finite man's box. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts... ...so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:9&11)

[@JeffGray]

So Romans 9 is about faith vs. works...? But Paul's point is that it's about God's election vs. works. He's not making the comparison to faith in these verses. The connection to faith is at the end of the chapter, but it does not appear in the bulk of Paul's argument about election. "...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of ELECTION might continue, not because of WORKS but because of him who CALLS-she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I WILL have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I WILL have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on HUMAN WILL or EXERTION, but on GOD, who has mercy." There is no reference to faith in this part of Paul's argument. Because faith vs. works is not Paul's argument here. He's making the distinction between those who WORK and those whom GOD CALLS. (Sorry for all the caps. Not yelling; just trying to call out the parallels.)

[@davidgatzke8337]

Paul quotes Mal. 1 in chapter 9 were it is clear that God’s hatred for Esau was because Esau did not respect his inheritance, And God planted the seed in Rebecca’s mind to prevent Isaac from giving the blessing of the first born to Esau. Because then God would have honour his prayer therefor the Blessing over his children

[@MC-sn2so]

The Greek word used here is agape . It’s self sacrificing love one that puts others first . Miseo the word for hate being the opposite of putting others first . Jacob was put first , Esau was second … In The New Testament Jesus told the Jews to “hate” their parents and “love” him but he also commanded them to honor and respect them . He told them to put him first . When you “hate” your child by sparring him the Rod you are putting yourself first by doing what’s easier not putting your child first by doing what’s harder .

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

The first steps to better clarity of reading anything is Context, then Comparison to similar passages, then Literacy. If the author is trying to say something, the context usual gives clues to the subject. Then comparing it to other parts on the same subject can give clarity and reinforcement. Literacy is unfortunately a common issue, as Literal and Figurative tones are not the only two ways language and stories are written. There's also Moral and hyperbole, and it's very possible something can be meant historically and figuratively as we see here Esau and Jacob both being real people with figurative meaning extracted from their story.

[@jersarver5752]

Why is it hermeneutical inconsistent referring to the Jacob and Esau? Plain Reading of the text?

[@wtodd1980]

Thank you Leighton!🙂

[@ronpatton5721]

Most excellent

[@talon769]

Thank you, Dr. Flowers! FYI, the link to The Potter's Promise is broken. I found and ordered it on the Amazon homepage. God bless!

[@Echarterisc]

@talon769, I believe God hates Esau is not literal because God is love, but God is not pleased with Esau because Esau is a reprobate and a child of the devil. Esau is not saved because God even cursed him in the book of Malachi.. I also believe that Esau and Jacob are both pedestined before they are born because God knows that Jacob is one of elect therefore he is predestined for salvation and also for service, while Esau is one of the reprobates and therfore he is predestined for damnation...

[@Echarterisc]

@talon769, What Leighton and the Calvinist missed is that: Jesus revealed that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. The elect and the reprobates.. All the elect are predestined to be saved because they are the children of God literally, and all the reprobates are predestined to be burned in fire because they are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a son of God as revealed by Luke in Luke 3:38 Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent as mentioned in Genesis 3:15 Cain is not the son of Adam. You cannot find any scripture that Cain is the son of Adam in the entire bible, but you can find a verse thst Cain is the son of the devil. Cain is not included in the the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5, because Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4..

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@@Echarterisc Genesis 4:1 exists. We can find it.

[@reformedpilgrim]

At 14:52, the slide says, _"Calvinism: God literally hates most people before their_ (sic) _born for reasons we don't know"_ Rather than treat "Calvinism" as a monolith here, it would be more useful to the audience to address a specific argument made by a specific individual.

[@jessg614]

No because he wants all Calvinists to see the logical entailments of their view, whether they call themselves a 3, 4, 5, or 7 “pointer”. The bottom line is if you believe God elected before birth everyone who is saved, then logically(as he cited Calvin) you must believe he also elected before birth all those who will be eternally damned. If not, the belief is inconsistent and illogical.

[@Yoke01]

While i appreciate your position on this subject, i still don't see that Rom 9, the way you do. God hateed for Esau and preference for Jacob simply means love Esau less, but Jacob more. The meanjng of hatred in scripture do often mean "love less" and this agrees with the scriptures you quoted. One point with regards to rom 9, if you ask me, is that Gods chosing of Jacob was unconditional. If not, Pauls statement that it depends, not on effort, but on God will be meaningless if we believe that the chosing of Jacob is consitional. That statement of Paul i dont see rhat as idiom. In Gal 4, Paul specificslly said it was symbolic drama, but he didt say that at Rom 9. To the stage i have watched your argument, i dont see a strong argument against calvinism.

[@chooseChrist-e2t]

God doesn't hate anyone less . He gave His Son for All . Equal Love

[@terminat1]

@@chooseChrist-e2t Then nobody could go to Hell because every person's sins would be forgiven.

[@chooseChrist-e2t]

@@terminat1 God didn't reject them

[@terminat1]

@@chooseChrist-e2t He didn't elect those who don't finally go to Heaven.

[@chooseChrist-e2t]

@@terminat1 It isn't a choosing of individuals . Read Ephesians 1

[@jeffreybomba]

Chapter 1 clearly state 3x that God has made Himself clearly known, man understood, man traded that away, man BECAME (not born) useless, so God GAVE THEM OVER to sin, not created them lost in it. Chap 5 start off with telling that the GRACE WE (the church) NOW STAND IN (eternally secure salvation) comes THRU FAITH. So just MAYBE when Paul quote 2 Psalms about THE FOOL THAT REJECTS GOD, and says NO NOT ONE, he is referring to those that reject God and not those created for damnation. Every other use of SEEK stands in opposition to Calvinism, so MAYBE there is a pattern Paul was referring to.

[@DA-yd2ny]

No other apostle understood and preached the Gospel of grace and clearly as Paul did. PERIOD. Problem is that Bible colleges teach the same false doctrines generation after generation without checking that what they are parroting after each other is correct or makes sense.

[@lukewagner8871]

Keep in mind that God is going to save all men 1 Timothy 4:9-11 KJVS This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. [10] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. [11] These things command and teach. Hebrews 11:20 KJVS By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. Esau will not inherit the promise God gave to Abraham, and his seed Jesus Christ. But he will be saved, when all Israel is saved, Ro 11:26.

[@Yaas_ok123]

Book "What it means to be Protestant" by Gavin Ortlund...excellent analysis.

[@TheRomans9Guy]

I understand this approach, the loved-loved less approach. And obviously Calvinism is wrong. But I think there’s a better approach to 9:13. I believe Paul actually did intend the love/hate implication, not the love/love-less implication, but he’s using the love/hate sardonically, mockingly. It would be as if Biden, or now Harris, came out with blue MAGA hats in their campaigns against Trump. Sure, they would sorta mean they wanted to make American great again, but REALLY their use of MAGA on blue hats would be a sardonic use, making a mockery of Trump’s message and campaign. That’s what’s going on here in 9:13. The Jews believed God chose only then and hated the Gentiles. But now Paul can see that with the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, that they are actually acting like the Esau in the story now. Paul gives a thorough explanation of this in Gal 4:21-31. He briefly refers to it here in Rom 9:13, but he’s also referred to it several other times in this chapter, including right in verse 12. Paul’s message is that God loves all people, not some. When your uses “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,” he’s doing so sardonically. He’s not actually teaching that God hates anyone, or even loves anyone less.

[@KISStheSON...]

That's basically the point Leighton is making against the doctrine of Calvinism that contradicts God's love for all men. Romans 5:6 “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” 2 Corinthians 5:15 “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

@@TheRomans9Guy why can't we just accept that Paul meant what he said? It is more consistent with the examples in the passage to view it that he unconditionally hated Esau and unconditionally loved Jacob. If it was due to their actions, then Paul wouldn't need to justify God's actions in vs 14 to people who think it isn't fair. Same with the example of damnation of Pharaoh in vs 17-18 and the justification to those who argue it isn't fair in 19-20, and the damnation of vessels for dishonor in 21-23. The calvinist reading seems like the obvious one while other ones seem like linguistic/logical gymnastics imo.

[@TheRomans9Guy]

@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 Well, the Calvinist reading is not only not obvious, it’s also contradictory to the rest of the book of Romans, both before and after chapter 9, so taking that path would be nonsensical. The path of verse 13 being due to their actions is also wrong. I’m not advocating for that. What I think you should do is read Galatians 4:21-31’a few times then come back to chapter 9. If you do that, it starts to become the clearest reading that Paul is reversing the roles throughout chapter 9 for great effect. I’ve written a book on this that you might find interesting.

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

@@TheRomans9Guy what is contradictory to the rest of Romans? I'm not seeing the reference between Jacob and Esau in Romans 9 to Galatians 4. I don't see a mention of either of them. I do see the mention of the children of promise in v8 of R9 but I don't see any connection to the calvinist-vs-not interpretation of Romans 9.

[@nigelpierre1991]

This is an allegorical reading of the text. I appreciate the hermeneutic, but I'm not sure if that's Paul's intent.

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

To properly understanding Rom 9 13 is not necessarily to focus on the definitions for "love" and "hate". One key is to know why Paul quotes Malachi and in my humble opinion, most are totally missing it. Does anyone even read Malachi? It's only four chapters. The very last book of our OT is about how God was incredibly angry at Israel and would therefore turn to the nations. Israel vs Gentiles. That is the theme in Malachi and that is the theme in Romans. The other key is to know that Paul equates Esau and Jacob to the previous generation, Ishmael and Isaac in Rom 9: 7-9. Why? Because Ishmael and Isaac are the "two covenants" in Paul's Gal 4 allegory. They are Israel and Jesus in prophecy. Israel was God's firstborn son (Ex 4 22) and Jesus became God's one and only Son. In Rom 9, just like in Malachi, Paul is saying that Israel was firstly God's people, and then Gentiles became God's people. Abraham became the father of "many nations". The two "nations" in Rebekah's womb were Israel ( depicted by Esau who despised his firstborn son's birthright and lost his blessing) and Jacob, who "supplanted" Esau as the heir prophetically speaking who depicted the Church through Christ whom Jacob was a shadow of. It's Jesus who actually wrestled with God and man and prevailed or "overcame". The whole thing is the answer to Paul's question as to why national, ethnic Israel was not being saved despite the Messiah's coming. It's because ultimately, only those who believe in Christ are "His people" whom God will never cast out as he did Ishmael....as he did Israel.

[@aggabus]

Romans 9:11-15 KJV (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) [12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

[@nsalaza]

If God hating someone means reprobation and therefore eternal condemnation, as the Calvinist logic inevitably holds, then ALL of Israel is condemned to eternal damnation! How do I know that? Because Jeremiah 12:8 (NIV) says, "My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her." The word 'hate' is found in the KJV as well as ESV, the ESV being a favorite of Calvinists. God's inheritance is Israel. So I guess God hates Israel and they are doomed... BUT this is NOT what the Word of God stands for! Therefore, Calvinistic theology is a complete heresy!

[@valkyrafe]

you debunk calvinism with ONE verse. Congrats I guess...

[@angloaust1575]

Quite straight forward One for honour one for dishonour However both received blessings in their lives! Two seeds womans and serpents!

[@Echarterisc]

@angloaust1575, What Leighton and the Calvinist missed is that: Jesus revealed that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world. The elect and the reprobates.. All the elect are predestined to be saved because they are the children of God literally, and all the reprobates are predestined to be burned in fire because they are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a son of God as revealed by Luke in Luke 3:38 Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent as mentioned in Genesis 3:15 Cain is not the son of Adam. You cannot find any scripture that Cain is the son of Adam in the entire bible, but you can find a verse thst Cain is the son of the devil. Cain is not included in the the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5, because Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4..

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@@Echarterisc Every time you copy and paste this, Genesis 4:1 will still exist.

[@joelandtori105]

Your conditional/unconditional argument is not convincing. Mainly because your explanation seems to fly in the face of the plain text of Romans 9 before they were born or had done anything good or bad, making gods hatred conditional on how they treated the Israelites - this is not Paul’s argument in Romans 9. What am I missing? Your argument here is on its face contrary to Romans 9.

[@Franklin-ww6nc]

I dont know much about this teacher but is he a five point arminian?

[@X00000370]

In the parable of the "Tars", explained to His disciples and hence too us by Jesus, we learn that the seed of Satan is growing in the world, his children, and these beings cannot be easily identified by God's people (but the angles know who's who...). So, could it not be these people that God hated prior to birth?

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Seed of Satan isn't a thing. So, no.

[@dr_that_guy]

The AI photo at 14:34 is terrifying when you notice the 2 rows of bottom teeth.

[@tedprice5828]

Everyone is under God’s wrath. Christ bore that wrath on Calvary.

[@OldSchoolCop.57]

I stop by this channel about every two months to see if the uncivil tone has changed. Unfortunately the tone continues to get worse. I fully respect Leighton's viewpoint and consider him a true brother in the faith. Considering this debate has been ongoing for centuries without resolution, I remain confident that God is capable of saving anyone who calls on Christ for salvation from their sins. How God works is truly a paradox that will be clearly understood when we stand before Him! All of the the thelogical drift we argue about tends to bring about more division than it does exortation. I usually encourage people to study the word for themselves and have a solid conviction of what it says and share that message with everyone you come in contact with and not condemn every person who doesn't totally agree with your doctrine. When I do come to this channel I try to pray for as many names as I can. I don't ask God to change your opinion, just your heart. I want to spend eternity with each one of you as we worship our almighty God and be thankful for whatever means He used to bring each one of us to Him! Blessings to you Leighton and the rest of the family!

[@atropinecaffeine]

Honestly, I truly didn't hear anything uncivil. I am truly curious--could you give an example?

[@VelcroCross]

@@atropinecaffeine If you don’t agree with his Theology you’re being uncivil

[@DOJOPROSHOP]

For Whom Did Christ Die? by John Owen The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either: All the sins of all men. All the sins of some men, or Some of the sins of all men. In which case it may be said: That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, “Because of unbelief.” I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”

[@justinb1261]

My brother, I'd like to respectfully disagree on your election vs. reprobation ..saying we must have the later with the former. And with whom you call modern Calvinistic, they are reformed and so is the doctrines. Yes ignorant people keep calling it calvinist on both sides but there has been many changes in the doctrines. As for election with out reprobation I think you fail to understand we all deserve hell. No man is righteous. If God decides to save one does not mean he must save all ...I know I know it's not fair....we don't want fair ...fair is all man is held accountable and no man can partake in Christ's righteousness and is not justified before The Father. If you think God sends people to hell because he doesn't like them or just because I think you might need to remember we were spiritually dead in our sins.

[@jamesjohnson8918]

You're getting close

[@tradermini2911]

malachi 1 - hebrew word for individual esau means rough hebrew word for nation of edom means red romans 9 uses word meaning rough for the individual esau is mr flowers ignorant of the rules of interpretation or is he building a foundation of deceit?????????????????????????????

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

Here is a Bible riddle of incredible importance.... Two "nations" were in Rebekah's womb. Contrary to popular belief, God was NOT prophesying about Edom and Israel. The implications of Esau and Jacob as two nations were far more reaching than that. Here are a few clues as to what two nations God was foretelling: 1: The first nation was a physical one and second, a spiritual one. 2: Two nations are the main Characters in the whole of Scripture. What are they? 3: Paul parallels Ishmael and Isaac to Esau and Jacob in Rom 9....why? These last few might just give it away.... 4: What "nation" did Jesus refer to when He told Israel that their kingdom would be transferred to it in Mat 21? 5: What "nation" was prophesied to make Israel angry and jealous in Deut 32 quoted by Paul in Rom 10? 6: What did Peter call the Church when he quotes Exo 19:6? Solve the riddle... anyone??

[@woodrowcall3158]

@@contemplate-Matt.G A kingdom of priests.

[@don-ek3ud]

Before the fall of Satan man existed. Jeremiah 4-22-27 isn't the flood of Noah but the fall of Satan God has put enmity between the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman two different seeds two different fathers. And the seed of Satan is always the accuser.

[@beijingkaii]

This is how not to read the Bible. The calvinists got it right. It is God's sovereign election. God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. It is the very nature of God to be sovereign and exercise it. Paul backed it up on the next verses.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Given that you started life guilty of Adams sin and totally depraved, and may very well still be, how do you know you understand Scripture? Why trust anything you think?

[@beijingkaii]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi it is still Jesus who will open my mind to understand the Scripture just like what he did to the disciples. Luke 24:45. Surely I can't trust my understanding that's why I need God.

[@jessg614]

@beijingkaii so God has opened your mind but not Dr. Flower’s mind? How can you be certain whose understanding is correct?

[@beijingkaii]

@@jessg614 1st of all, i didn't say that. Dont put words on my mouth WOMAN. 2nd, he's saying put it on context but he's not. Romans 9:13 is talking about salvation, not service. That is why Paul anticipated the questions to what he said and answered them that there is no injustice on God when he loves someone and hates the other one. If context is discussed, then read the whole book of Romans, not cherry picking verses.

[@jessg614]

@@beijingkaiiwhen you called me WOMAN that seems derogatory. Care to share plainly what you meant by that for all to see? As to whose mind is open, you didn’t have to “say” that, it is the logical conclusion to your previous statements: the Spirit opened your mind, not his.

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

Dr. Flowers, I pray you'll finally read "Jacob and Esau two nations and the inheritance" and then have me on your show.

[@kingterence1598]

Let’s for argument sake put Romans 9 on the shelf. What do we do with the gazillion other verses that point to Calvinism? So God chose Abraham, Moses, Israel, ALL the OT prophets, ALL the NT disciples but not YOU you chose Him? Well Ok nice work. And for those anti Calvinist who believe “once saved always saved” where do you think that came from? You’re all at least 1 point Calvinist. Men don’t reject Calvinism because it contradicts the Bible men reject Calvinism because it contradicts them. Human pride always prevails.

[@OneHighwayWalker]

The picture of the tattooed baby is quite a poor choice.

[@James-ns2hs]

background music killing me 😂 needed to stop listening

[@terminat1]

No. The Bible clearly teaches that God elected a people for Himself. This election wasn't based on the individual's will or desire (Romans 9:15-16).

[@r3aperrising984]

The question is, how did he choose the elect, and what are they elected for? Ephesians says we are elect/chosen *in Christ Jesus* (we are "in Christ" when we put our faith in Him), and we are elect for a purpose--for spreading the gospel, for sanctification, and for eventual glorification. Everyone believes in election. We just don't agree on what election is. But God loves all people and desires all people to be saved, even false prophets (2 Peter 2:1) so Calvinistic election is impossible. (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:13-20, Colossians 1:15-20)

[@terminat1]

@@r3aperrising984 He chose the elect based on His sovereign will. God answers to no one. Nobody is elect because they put their faith in Christ. Salvation is of grace, not works. If God wanted literally every person to become saved, then every person would become saved. The reason some don't is not because they fail to believe but because God didn't choose them to become saved.

[@r3aperrising984]

@@terminat1 If you are simply going to reject all of the verses I cited, I can see why you would believe that. The reason not everyone is saved is because we have free will. God has provided everything we need to believe and is drawing all people to himself (John 12:32), and the reason people aren't saved isn't that God hated them before they were born; it is because they refused to love the truth so as to be saved and traded that truth for lies, as Paul says.

[@terminat1]

@@r3aperrising984 But you just described the nature of every human being. Man is dead in sins before salvation. God only draws those He plans to save (John 6:37, 44). The word "all" doesn't necessarily mean every last human being. Salvation is of grace, not works (or merit).

[@r3aperrising984]

​@@terminat1 If you reject all of the verses I cited, I can see how you would believe that. However, those verses, along with John 12:32, prove that not only does God want all people to be saved, he died for all people, and loves all people. Ephesians says we are chosen *in Christ*. How do we get in Christ? By believing in Jesus. The reason people reject God is not because he isn't drawing them, doesn't love them, or doesn't want them to be saved. It's because he gave us free will, and some choose to reject his free offer of grace, and others choose to accept it.

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

My 2 cents from one calvinist perspective -> Point 1 and 2 go together, I could go along with the view that hated could mean "love less" but for the context. Romans 9 provides examples of Jacob vs. Esau, Pharaoh, and vessels for glory vs. vessels for destruction. All three examples are talking about the same thing and all refer to God's choice rather than what man thinks is fair and all three examples refer to people bound for destruction per God's will. Point 3. It would appear from the text it affects individuals and nations. It mentions the "before they had done anything good or bad" which clearly refers to individuals and also the destruction of Pharaoh who was an individual as is indicated by his individual hardening by God. Point 4. Very strongly disagree. If the hatred was conditional, Paul would not have mentioned that it was prior to them doing anything good or bad. He would have said something like "because God knew what they would do". Paul went out of his way to state that it was unconditional by saying God's choice was not tied to their behavior. In all three examples, Paul anticipates someone will think it isn't fair or just for God to dictate man's behavior and in all cases Paul says you don't get to tell God what is or isn't fair. Again, love the format. Please keep doing videos in this style for different passages.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 Re “before Good or bad”. What you’re saying could be true, still doesn’t change the context that it is Israel he is referring to and nothing to do with choosing people to be saved or not. Ie He is saying in essence “God chose Jacob to be the lineage of Israel, because He is God, and it has nothing to do with whether the child was good or bad”. Ie you might think God chose Jacob to be the Israel’s lineage because he was good, or better then Esau.

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

@@andrewtsousis3130 based on the context, it has application for both individuals and nations. The two other examples in the passage are Pharoah and vessels for glory/destruction. Pharaoh was an individual and Paul said God made him reverse his repentance so that God could show his power by destroying him. Jacob was an individual who was chosen for salvation and Esau was rejected. All three examples refer to salvation as a continuation of the salvation message in Romans 8. If it didn't refer to salvation, it wouldn't contrast the vessels of mercy against those for destruction or mention Pharaoh's destruction. The closing of the chapter indicates those chosen were saved by faith and not the law showing he isn't talking about service, he is talking about salvation throughout.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 no where does it say Jacob was chosen for salvation and Esau wasn’t. You’re saying that. The reference to vessels is as per the OT references which do not mean anyone was chosen to be saved or not. They just simply don’t mean this. The closing summary statement in Roman’s 9 proves Paul is not talking about any “election” or “damnation. He just isn’t.

[@jeremywolffbrandt7488]

​@@andrewtsousis3130 Does Paul wish himself "separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers" v3 over their lack of choice for service? Does "mercy" in v 15,16,18,23 mean mercy for service or mercy from punishment for sin? Did God use Pharaoh to show his lack of election for service? Esau and his people were destroyed. Pharaoh was destroyed. The vessels of mercy were "prepared beforehand for glory" contrasted against the vessels prepared for destruction. All three examples contrast God's choice to show mercy against his choice for destruction for the others. Paul would not wish himself cutoff from Christ if the passage were only talking about service. God wouldn't contrast mercy against destruction if it weren't about salvation throughout. As it says in v. 16, "it does not depend on the one who wills(...)but God who has mercy.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 re vessels of destruction etc Paul is referencing back to Jeremiah 18 where the Lord showed Jeremiah a potter who was working on a vessel that didn’t work out right. So the potter revised his plan and made a different pot Jeremiah (18:1-4). In the same way the Lord said since he is the Potter and Israel is the clay he has the right, and is willing to “change his mind” if Israel simply repent (Jerimah 18:4-11). Here the lord announces that if He is going to Judge a nation He is willing to change His mind if they repent. He also says if He is going to bless a nation He will change His mind if they reject Him. So what Paul is saying here with the potter’s analogy is, it is not God’s determining will, (Ie mercy and destruction etc) but His willingness and right to change His plans in response to changing hearts. This all fits in Romans 9 where Paul is saying God had blessed Israel and now because they are rejecting Christ with no faith/belief ,unlike the gentiles, He is now hardening them further due to their unbelief in the same way Pharaoh was hardened (due to his initial disobedience and unbelief). God used this to show His sovereignty. (Roman’s 9:17). So in the case of the Israel’s rebellion He is now doing what he hoped their obedience would do, and that is to bring the non-Jewish gentiles into a relationship with Him. (Romans 11:11-12) This also explains why Paul says that God “endured with much patience” the vessels he was preparing for destruction (Rom. 9: 22). Why would God have to “endure with much patience” rebellious people if he was the one making them rebellious in the first place? Why would he go on to say, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (10:21, quoting Isa. 65:2) if he was the one molding them to be disobedient? And why would a God of love intentionally fashion people to rebel against him and bring destruction on themselves in the first place?

[@93556108]

Awesome exposition of rom9 which is a false proof texts of Calvinism.

[@ryleighloughty3307]

The Bible teaches that human beings are totally depraved; there is no good in us. Before creation, God chose whom he would elect to his heavenly kingdom, and Jesus died for them. Those whom God has chosen cannot resist his choice nor fall away from his choice. Praise be to God!

[@Yahda7]

Your entire approach is to "debunk" Calvinism. That's an awful odd obsession to have over something that is "false".

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Debunking heresy isn't an "odd obcession"

[@jessg614]

No, it’s good to seek to uphold truth and destroy falsehood, especially when it comes to the wrong implications of the character of God. Following the example of Paul, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭10‬:‭5‬ ‭

[@thomasb4467]

I think this is an important work on his part considering how tempting Calvinism is and how many influential Calvinists are out there on social media.

[@larrybedouin2921]

Why? Because he has a burden for their souls?

[@bryangatewood6749]

You must not know how much Calvinism is an issue in the world today. Very destructive heresy

[@JeffGray]

You're saying the nation of Edom's rejection by God is because they attacked Israel. And THAT'S why Paul said "...in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?" I'm sorry. I'm just not following this argument at all. Paul's entire point is that Esau had done nothing good or bad and FROM BIRTH he was rejected. There's no way to smuggle in 1,500 years of future behavior into the argument. "...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..." The entire point is that God is free to make sovereign choices without respect to our works, good or bad.

[@SheepDog1974]

You don't read much!? Does God reject Esau or his entire posterity?

[@JeffGray]

@@SheepDog1974 Both. But on what basis does God, in Romans 9, reject Esau?

[@SheepDog1974]

@@JeffGray Gods judgement is always on the basis of condition. It's never arbitrary. God rejects Esau because Esau despised his birth right, in exchange for temporal comfort. In the gospel of Mark, does Jesus heal people from Idumeans? Who's posterity are they? Are they not descendants of Esau? Mark 3:8-10 What about Revelation 7:9? Are there any descendants of Esau represented? Your misunderstanding is the verse Paul writes in Romans 9:13. It's a direct quote from Malachi 1, which is God's judgment against the nation of Edom and NOT an individual election for salvation of one brother over another.

[@JeffGray]

​@@SheepDog1974 Friend, you're avoiding the clear statements in Romans 9 in order to flee to other texts that aren't talking about this subject. What, in Romans 9 ONLY is the reason that God rejects Esau? The answer is in verse 11. The objection that Paul anticipates is in verse 14 and Paul's answer to the objection is in verses 15-16. I would agree that God's judgment is not arbitrary. But that doesn't mean we will understand it. God gives us his reason for whom he chooses and whom he rejects in verse 15. It may not feel like an answer, and it may not feel fair, but it's God's word. And God knows we'll struggle with this text, which is why he put the internal hermeneutical markers in it like verses 14 & 19. If we're not struggling with the same issues Paul says we'll be struggling with, then we're not interpreting the text correctly.

[@SheepDog1974]

@@JeffGray trees vs forrest. Pauls appeal to the Jews, is that they are relying on their genealogy for salvation. Paul is identifying that Jacobs line was elected for "service" as the people through whom God would reveal His plan of redemption to the world. The Jews seemed to believe that only because they are Abraham's grandchildren, they automatically had eternal rights. If you keep reading 9:32 explains why. 9:13 is a direct quote from Malachi 1. It's a national implication and not a singular election of God's choice for eternal salvation over the other brothers eternal damnation. Yes. In some instances God chooses... BUT Romans 9 is ALL about election for service (the conduit of God's redemptive plan) and not a soteriological statement.

[@ProRege-1]

I am not quite following why Dr. Flowers suggests that Calvinists would have to commit themselves to the majority of the unborn being un-elect if 'hate' is taken literally in Romans 9. The proportion of the un-elect is not a requisite aspect of the Calvinistic doctrine of election and many of the reformed have been post-millennial, holding to a position that the majority of persons are elect in the end-game. Moreover, the doctrine of reprobation need not imply that God dams the reprobate in the same fashion as he predestines the elect to salvation. There is a positive/negative asymmetry, to use a paradigm of R.C. Sproul. God's positive predestination to eternal life entails his supernatural intervention to save the elect, whereas the negative reprobation does not obtain said supernatural intervention, but rather has God transcendently upholding the natural order on it's natural course and in so doing leaving the reprobate to their own devices. So, it really depends on what portrayal of reprobation Calvin was saying to be necessary and what portrayal of reprobation Calvinists since Calvin's time are denying. And still, Paul's point is not that there are infants who are damned, but that the basis of reprobation is not one's demerits, as illustrated by the intrauterine situation. How does the use of 'Hate' idiomatically spare Romans 9 of the Calvinistic interpretation.? The reformed can just as well say that God has general love for everyone (as Psalm 145 states) AND that God has the prerogative to not shed his covenantal love on all equally (anymore than a husband sheds his covenantal love on all women equally) for a greater purpose/good that he has. Romans 8 ends with talking about salvation and there is no indication that Paul switches to a focus on service in Romans 9, either in his own prose or in his use of OT texts. Yes, Paul has in mind individuals, and that is why he starts Romans 9 with 'not all Israel is Israel', as a defense of why people end up cursed. Even though there are national implications to the mentioning of Esau in the OT texts, Paul applies the texts for individual salvific implications. That's what matters -- Paul's use, Paul's demonstrated understanding, which is not without it's national layers as well.

[@jtlearn1]

1. Esau and Jacob were both born condemned in Adam and worthy of Hatred. 2. God chose to love Jacob and have mercy on him. 3. Election to Salvation is an active choice of God that applies mercy. But Reprobation is passive by allowing justice to have it's due. This is Asymmetrical election, not Equal. 4. Calvinism does not deny free moral agency or free will. But Calvinism acknowledges that the will flows from the Nature. Because Human Nature is fallen, the will always freely chooses sin. 5. Flowers always mischaracterizes Calvinism and argues against those strawmen. Election and predestination as understood by Augustin and the Reformed are simply the plain teaching of Scripture. 5. The natural man can not and will not receive the things of the Spirit, and so it is with Flowers and those who resist the plain teaching of Scripture and who seek to boast in themselves.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Methinks you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Seem to think verse about Jacob is REALLY only about Jacob, and by extension - you? Siwwy wabbit 🙂 Paul's talking about God's freedom in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant however He wishes - including going outside tradition and choosing the younger (Jacob) rather than the eldest, as was the tradition of the day. The point being, that if God chooses to include Gentiles, He can. Thus the Jacob/Esau motif. This message to a Jew(s) who think that being born, a descendent of Jacob (Israel), means they're guaranteed the Kingdom. That it's only ethnic Jews who are saved. But "Not all who are of Israel ARE (true) Israel. Not all Jewish born are the true Israel. Only those with the faith of Abraham. Look up what this means: EDEM PER EDEM And remember, at the cutting of the Covenant between God and Abraham. Only one party walked between the pieces. God Abraham was asleep. Had Abraham walked between the pieces, then when his descendents failed, even once, according to the tradition of cutting the Covenant, that "Let what was done to these (pieces) be done to me if I fail this Covenant), God could have wiped them out for not upholding it. But only God walked the pieces, meaning He is the only party that must uphold said Covenant. Therefore, as long as His actions do not violate the terms of said Covenant, He can fulfill it in any way He wants. And what He wants is to include Gentiles together WITH the Jews. EDEM PER EDEM. This is the bigger picture of what's going on here. --Peace

[@jtlearn1]

@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi wrong. Paul's point is salvation is only by election. From Abraham till Christ, mainly Jews. From The Cross to His return, mainly Gentiles. And perhaps a secondary in gathering of Jews. Either way, God's mercy of election to some at certain times to be on Christ is all of Him.

[@jtlearn1]

@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi is faith in Christ a gift of God worked by the Holy Spirit by washing and regeneration? Only a gift to the elect?

[@Max-dd4ow]

I genuinely dislike Calvinism, not Calvanists, Calvinism. I think it strips away all assurance of salvation and leaves the believer in a state of fear

[@bobbobb4804]

Calvinism is obviously nonsensical, but your view of assurance takes the urgency out of our salvation and is unbiblical. Just read Philippians 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

[@PhilipBaker-sf4yv]

It is a waste of time debating hardened non calvinists. Just leave them be. If they are his own God will bring them home regardless of their inability to digest the strong meat of the word in this life

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

The epitome gaslighting😅

[@PhilipBaker-sf4yv]

@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi i was talking about the likes of you, not to the likes of you. I was not trying to get you to change your non calvinist opinion. My appeal was to reformed men not to get drawn into fruitless arguments. Familiarise yourself with what the term "gaslighting" actually means.

[@jessg614]

Indirect gaslighting then. “What you are clearly hearing isn’t true, they’re wrong we’re right.” No evidence or arguments just making people feel stupid if they don’t agree with you. That’s gaslighting!

[@jessg614]

Rather than presenting any evidence as to the reason why Leighton’s understanding of Romans 9 is faulty, you just try to tell people who share your same views to look away. You’re basically saying “this isn’t true” when it seems clearly true to many who hear it yet you just say “they have an inability to understand”. That’s why it’s gaslighting.

[@gk.4102]

_"It is a waste of time debating hardened non calvinists. Just leave them be."_ That's the spirit! That's why i love hyper-calvinists' consistency. They realize that it's a waste of time trying to fight God decrees. They're the only Calvinists who understand that everything happening (good or evil) is meticulously determined and brought to pass by no other than God Himself and that there's nothing they can do about it.

[@PhilipBaker-sf4yv]

If that convinces you then so be it

[@jessg614]

You speak as though it’s not a strong argument. On the contrary, may you have ears to hear the heart and truth of God’s word and the gospel for all mankind.

[@PhilipBaker-sf4yv]

@@jessg614 would you be asking God to violate my free will by giving me hearing ears?

[@jessg614]

@@PhilipBaker-sf4yvnot at all. Im asking God to help you overcome anything that might be hindering you. He does that (influences and convicts the heart of truth) without overriding the will. It’s the person’s responsibility to decide how they will respond.

[@Abridgelion]

​@@jessg614I honestly don't see how God can't choose to use either/or. Some folks, He leaves just enough mental stepping stones to make the connection. Others, He decides they need to pilgrimage to Damascus via donkey.

[@jessg614]

@@Abridgelion It does appear God gives more light to some than others, but I wouldn’t say it’s overriding their will. Even with Paul, of course how could anyone deny God after an encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, but even that is not necessarily overriding his will (Paul could have kept his heart hard if he wanted too) it’s just providing a most awesome revelation of himself (the light of the world) in a way most people aren’t blessed with-literally a ton of blinding, life-giving light! So awesome.

[@joeinterrante7873]

Why dont you use your energy to spread the gospel instead of constantly banging on your brothers understanding of scriptures? Perhaps you should have these " conversations" privately and in person with real theologians. Just a suggestion brother

[@ryleighloughty3307]

Spot on. Flowers is so angry with Christians who disagree with him.

[@shabbatwithjosh]

@@joeinterrante7873 do you think it's possible that a more biblical and livable theology might produce good fruit that could lead to more salvation? It seems to me that this is entirely possible. Calvinism presents God in such a negative light (such as suggesting people burning in hell for eternity is good because it glorifies God) that it seems to me that refuting such nonsense could lead to a healthier church and a more accurate and attractive picture of God, and lead more people into the kingdom.

[@exag0ra]

So heresy should just be left unchecked? Why not include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses under the umbrella of Christianity?

[@ryleighloughty3307]

@@shabbatwithjosh Calvinism does no such thing. I invite you to study Calvinism before you speak falsely about it. Have a nice day.

[@ryleighloughty3307]

@@exag0ra What 'heresy' are you referring to?

[@pamscarr8696]

HE really hated Esau/Edom before he was born. Foe Redemption and service. National as to the tribes of Jacob/Israel but more specifically 10 of the tribes Jesus called "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. Matthew 10:5&6 and Matthew 15:24 Also Luke in Acts 2: 36-39... The house of Israel are NOT Jews. They are these tribes; Reuben, Simeon, Gad, Dan, Asher, Issachar, Naphtali, Zebulun, Manasseh and Ephraim/Joseph. The whys and wherefores are clearly given in the Old Testament which I suspect you outright reject as relevant or are fully illiterate in its content.

[@d_Gnome]

The backdrop is and leadup is about being a child of the flesh or a child of promise. A vessel(flesh) that God designed as going to be destroyed. Or, a vessel(spirit) of mercy that will receieve the inheritance. Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Esau is an example of God choosing the flesh for destruction and the spirit to glorify God. The backdrop also works corporately to individual. All men, all israel, Abrahams seed, Isaacs seed, then Pharoah/Moses

[@truthseeker5698]

Will you have Steve Lawson on once he recants his god of Calvinism reformed theology ?

[@terminat1]

The Bible is clear that God elected a people for Himself.

[@jessg614]

@@terminat1yes he has elected everyone who meets his condition of faith in Christ as Savior. The faith is what we bring to the relationship, he has already given himself. Salvation is for all who willingly believe, confess and repent of their sin and trust him for salvation.

[@terminat1]

@@jessg614 No. There are no conditions to be met to become saved. If there were, salvation would no longer be of grace. Believing, confessing, repenting, and trusting are all actions of the individual, and so cannot save. God does all the work in saving a person.

[@jessg614]

@@terminat1 Jesus said to repent and believe in the gospel (Mk 1:15). We have several examples of Jesus telling people their faith has saved them (Lk. 7:50, 17:19) or healed them (Mk. 10:42, Mt 9:22; 8:13; 15:28). When Jesus saw the faith of the paralytic and his friends he first said “your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:5). Jesus said we must repent or perish (Luke 13:5). Repentance is not true unless you believe in a God to repent to. A salvation that requires nothing more than you to acknowledge who saves you is still a salvation by grace alone. Jesus cares about the heart. That is clear from the sermon on the mount. That is why faith and repentance is so important to him. He wants hearts willingly surrendered to him. That is all, but it is a condition!

[@terminat1]

@@jessg614 If having a surrendered heart is a condition for salvation, then salvation is no longer of grace. Grace is undeserved. The Bible teaches throughout that man will never choose for God on God's terms. He can't because he is dead in sins and in rebellion. The faith that saves is Christ's (Galatians 2:16, 20). He is called Faithful and True. The only ones who will come to God in a proper way are those whom God first saves. These are the ones who will recognize their spiritual brokenness and their complete reliance on God to save them. Not 99%, but 100% reliant on God. That is true salvation, trusting 100% in the mercy of God. It is grace and grace alone.

[@joeya1192]

Stop using background music!!!!

[@Ed-ts4bj]

Your argument that our LORD's elect can be deceived is bogus!

[@Dsp0122-s1v]

Through Romans 9, Paul revealed to us the eternal Gospel of our Lord Jesus... Yet, many believers among us struggle to understand Romans 9. That is because in Romans 9, Paul asserted the predestination of mankind. To many among us predestination seems unjust and unfair. That is, if indeed we are predestined, why does our Lord Jesus still blame us...? Temporal minded men will quite naturally think in that way. Paul anticipated those sorts of objections. This is how Paul deftly addressed those anticipated objections through Romans 9... In Romans 9, Paul used Jacob and Esau as an outward analogy to spur us to look inwardly at our present sinful condition and how then we must be changed to be saved. Since this is Paul teaching us, we can think of Jacob and Esau as correlating to Paul and the Pharisee Saul, respectively. So, then, Romans 9:22-24 becomes plain to understand... That is, Esau is used to spur us to understand that Saul was the object of our Lord Jesus's wrath destined for everlasting destruction to be cast into the lake of sulfur. Jacob is used to spur us to understand that Paul was the object of our Lord Jesus's mercy destined for everlasting glory. Indeed, then, it was Paul that entered through the narrow gate. Now, then, through Romans 9, the eternal Gospel of our Lord Jesus comes into focus... That is, each one of us is both an object of our Lord Jesus's wrath and mercy. This is why we all must be born again. This is why we all must all be changed. Indeed, we all will be changed according to the mystery Paul revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57... "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." So, then, through Romans 9, Paul revealed the eternal Gospel of our Lord, God, Creator, and Savior Jesus... Indeed, unequivocally, all honor and glory belong to our Lord Jesus, who is God Almighty over all, in all, and through all to be forever praised.

[@derekdavis3004]

Before Esau did anything bad? Esau was born of Adam. Everyone born of Adam is evil, Romans 5:12. What are you talking about, brother?

[@Chris.A.H]

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) He quoted scripture

[@derekdavis3004]

@@Chris.A.H He quoted but it but does he understand it? Why did he say God cannot condemn Esau before he was born when, clearly God could condemn anyone of us at anytime and be perfectly justified in doing so?

[@Chris.A.H]

@@derekdavis3004 you’re obviously not understanding the text. Are you a Calvinist?

[@derekdavis3004]

@@Chris.A.H You are quick to accuse aren't you, brother. I know you hate the Calvinists but I do not identify as one, so you don't get to automatically hate me 😜. I believe I understand just fine: Romans 9:11 is saying that God's judgement overrides whether a person does good or bad in their life, is it not? So that his "election might stand". What am I missing, help me if you can, please brother.

[@Chris.A.H]

@@derekdavis3004 how ironic that you say I’m quick to accuse but then accuse me of hating Calvinists. This is hypocrisy 101. I didn’t accuse you of anything, I literally asked if you were a Calvinist rather then assuming you were. Learn humility. Secondly, you’re not understanding the text. God’s judgment is absolutely conditional. And his election is conditional as well. He’s knows the end from the beginning so he elects based on his foreknowledge of who would obey and who wouldn’t. He didn’t choose some to obey and some not to.

[@twig700]

This is hilarious.

[@bobbobb4804]

Yeah, it’s hilarious seeing how the Calvinists reacted to it in the comments.