Romans  

After an investigation of this doctrine, I found myself spiritually stifled ! I was anxious, confused, and fell into dark depression. Thank you Holy Spirit for revealing the truth about Jesus ! The truth has set me free !

Leighton, I absolutely love this “DeCalvinizing” series. Covenient packaging of answers to the Calvinistic presuppositions being brought to their proof texts is very welcome and, for me, these answers reveal a much more harmonious-with-the-rest-of-scripture understanding. Thank you.

Adrian Rogers preached an ALL TIME GREAT message on this called "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!" and EVERYBODY should hear that message. I honestly just straight up wish this comment would be pinned here so everyone would see this and go check that message out. It's incredibly great.

Never heard a great breakdown of Roman's 9! I have been a calvinist for a couple years now, lately I have rejected its teaching. Thanks be to my beautiful girlfriend and her constant debate about this and God humbling me to look into what I believed and re-examine myself.

This makes way more sense. I'm a very young Christian and I was listening exclusively to Calvinists for the past two months and I was getting confused on why God is apparently constantly angry and rarely happy according to the people I was listening to

John Calvin completely misinterpreted Romans 9. The impact of that mistake is still felt in God's church to this day!

Calvinism is an expression of the character of Jean Cauvin (John Calvin), NOT of God's character. Thanks be to God!

Thanks so much! I am being freed of calvinism after being crushed by it

I experienced the glorious salvation of our saviour God at a joint churches outreach at Christmas time in my city many years ago, and in the crowd were my sister and brother-in-law, Calvinists. Having witnessed my conversion they took it upon themselves to disciple me, and the first book my brother-in-law thrust into my hands was not The Bible, but instead a work I'm sure you know well, namely The Bondage Of The Will, which he insisted I read right away. The first realisation I had that the doctrine of the Calvinists had to be wrong was the assumption of God's intrinsic caprice, rather than His intrinsic love. I'd already had encounters with God who'd shown me His love before I knew His name, and knew in my spirit when He saved me that the teachings of the Calvinists was a pernicious lie. Thank you, Leighton, for your ministry, which I'm sure has been instrumental in the correction of erroneous understanding of The Word of God for many suffering followers of Jesus.

"Leighton Flowers" - Calvinists Worst Nightmare. 👺

Its amazing how simple Gods word is when you block out Augustinian gnosticism

What a tremendous help these explanations are. Really loving the shorter videos. So much more accessible

What a wonderful blessing you are to the body of Christ. GOD Bless you sir!

Thank you very much for your teachings. I am the oddball in the family I married into. They are great Christians and wonderful children of God who are all Calvinists. I don't agree with them and they know it, but I often have trouble explaining why I believe what I do. Even before I knew what Calvinism was, it didn't sound right to me. I had heard it a lot in my Christian walk since I came to the Lord while I was in the US Navy, but I didn't learn the name "Calvinism" until about 15 years ago (give or take). As I was talking to a guy in a Christian book store, he looked at me and said, "You sound like you are a Calvinist." I asked what that was and he sold me a book called, "What is Calvinism". I read it and thought, "I agree with that and that, but I definitely don't agree with that or that." Then all the questions began to surface and plague me. What was right? What was Wrong? I agree with Both Calvinist and Armenians and I disagree with both too. So I chose to be in the Middle and simply be a Christian who believes in the Bible. Your videos have helped me understand more of what I already believe. Thank you.

Q: What is God’s PURPOSE in election? If you get this wrong you will get EVERYTHING wrong. I believe this is the key verse in the Romans 9 passage. Romans 9:11 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;) God’s PURPOSE was that through the NATION of Israel ALL the nations would be blessed in that salvation would be available to ALL through FAITH. Israel was the chosen nation through which the Messiah would come and the oracles of God. God’s purpose was INCLUSIVE not exclusive.

Clear as day. I pray for more wisdom Dr. Flowers. You are such a great blessing to me and to others. ❤

This short videos series are just awesome...You are a blessing even for us in India. Thank you and God bless you more,Leighton.

The Southern Baptist Church needs to do two things after repentance. They need to get rid of wokism and then reject Calvinism.

Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated; Gods talking about the Nations, not the children.

Very well done once again! Thank you for being faithful to what you have been called to share!

Perfectly explained and aligns with the rest of Scripture and the Nature of God.

Right on man! This one is very needed!

Thank you sir. I always cringed at some of the Calvinist perspectives on scripture. It never read that way to me. I could never synchronize God willing that none should perish and God predestining people for hell. This exegesis seems far closer to the mark.

This was amazing. Thank you very much for sharing your commentary on Romans 9. I am in a study group moving through this book, and we are going to be discussing Romans 9 tonight. With your commentary, I feel well prepared to share with my group and convicted with the Holy Spirit that what you share is true.

Great teachings brother! I really enjoy the balance you guys bring to Calvinistic beliefs! It really helps for good study!

Thank you, Leighton, for true exposition fitting the context of Romans, Paul's letters, and the whole bible, unlike your calvinistic opponents.

This video is next to extraordinary. Excellent analysis.

I found this video very calming. Not only is it filled with wonderful information, but your voice is relaxing and the light guitar in the background is peaceful. Love it!

Everyone have said this but: thank you. This Helps a lot. For real men, thanks God so much for you.

Hate means hate, predestination means predestination, thre is none that seeketh, after God they've all gone back they've all become unprofitable there is none that doeth good No not one, their dead in trespass and sin , dead people can ask for salvation . The mental gymnastics done to try to show free will doctrine the Rome set forth is amazing.

All due respect to you Mr Flowers, but your interpretation contradicts itself. I'll list these contradictions below: 1.) Why do you first define the "hatred" as idiomatic and then proceed later into the video to assert it as literal? That God literally hated "Esau" or Edom because of their wickedness and evil deeds against "Jacob" or Israelites. I thought it was idiomatic? So why address it later as actual hatred? 2.) Why do you first use God's hatred for "Esau" to mean toward the individual called Esau, then later use "Esau" to mean those who descended from the individual? Is "Esau" for the individual or the nation of Edom? Why are you jumping between individual and nation, and idiomatic hatred and literal hatred? 3.) Why do you state that God gives a chance for everyone to be removed from under his wrath, then later quote scriptures where God says himself that his wrath will abide on the Edomites "forever"? That doesn't sound like they have a chance to be removed, or does forever not actually mean forever? That's probably not all the contradictions that can be found in your interpretation, but these are the ones I managed to pick up after listening to it from start to finish a few times over. I hope you can address these inconsistencies I see in your interpretation, or correct my misunderstanding if I am not understanding you correctly. Much love from a brother in Christ.

I absolutely love these short helpful teaching videos! Thank you for providing them!

Such an important and pivotal verse to combat Calvinism. Get a Calvinist to concede this verse and their foundation is seriously fractured.

Very well explained. Thank you. "God is love" (1Jn 4:8) should be all we need to know to expose Calvinism as impossible to be true.

Well explained. God bless you brother for shining the light on this very important subject.

Obadiah explains so well why God hated Esau (Edom). They were a cruel and proud people who showed Jacob (Israel) their brother no mercy, but did their best to destroy them and rejoiced in their calamity. They were a people like so many who are unwilling to change and serve the Lord. Calvinists don't believe that God can predict the future. They believe that God knows the future only because He has ordained it. So much of what they believe belittles God and goes against his good nature. I can't see how they could be anything but a cult. Anyone who believes what John Calvin taught needs to be saved. Calvinism is very cruel and blasphemous. Thanks for taking a stand against Calvinism, Leighton.

God bless you Leighton! I am so thankful to God for your ministry. Theistic determinism can really mess with ones head and their view of the goodness of God. The calvinist may think their doctrine makes God bigger and better but they have to have some very twisted ways of looking at things to reach that conclusion. The provisionist view keeps God's goodness and love intact instead of trashing it like the calvinist do by their gnosticism.

i’m so confused. i don’t know what to believe anymore. everyone sounds so confident in their view.

When God needed an Esther He raised an Esther , When God needed a man to expose Calvinism and destroy the TULIP He raised Flowers Leighton

This is fantastic. I have been wracking my head, trying to understand how god can love all equally yet elect many for hell b4 they were even born, b4 doing good or evil

The key to understand Romans 9 is to keep reading the whole chapter. The Potter, The LORD, creates vessels for mercy and vessels for wrath. Paul brings it back to the Church by saying, “even us,” implicating that they were graciously chosen by God’s grace to receive his mercy, the gift of faith. He saves. He raises dead hearts from the dead so that they have the ability to believe. We were dead in our trespasses. God made us alive. I did not bring myself to life. God did the work. To God be the glory forever.

I always thought the basis of Romans nine was neither this interpretation or the interpretation by Calvinist but rather Paul was saying that in a nutshell that God’s chosen people are those who our in Christ both Jew and Gentile and not just for the Jew

it is so wonderful to hear a betiful message in regards to a selection of people of the world that can exersize their prilvlege to ask our precioud savior fore their salvation.

This is all good, but not a single ex-Calvinist including Sam Shamoun has ever addressed these questions to me: Was Jesus Christ’s crucifixion predetermined since it was foretold in the bible? Was it at any point that Christ could not have been been crucified? Was there at any point that Judas could have changed his mind and not betray Jesus? Was Christ’s crucifixion only foreseen (as if God foresaw in the future what would happen and based on that He made His decision)? If God actually predetermined Christ’s crucifixion what causes the certainty of its outcome? I beg and literally beg anybody to address these questions. Thank you.

Thank you Dr Leighton Flowers for your teachings! You have freed many from the contradictions of Calvinism. I pray God will allow you to continue spreading His truth.

What a beautiful refutation of Calvinism. As always, Dr. Flowers…thank you.

My gut tells me you’re correct!

Roman's 9 is about Jews thinking that surely they are more worthy candidates of God's salvation than the gentiles were... and Paul puts everything into perspective - that no, not all descendants of Abraham are inheritors of the promise, not all Israel is actually Israel.. and that God will save whom he chooses to save whether that be Gentiles or Jews regardless.

this video was amazing, just amazing. so much explained in such a short time, and it was illuminating to me, and i have studied apologetics for years and consider myself an apologist.

Thanks brother for clearing something up for me. Haven’t really grasped faith and now I am getting some understanding.

Thank you Dr. Flowers for your videos. They are very insightful and helpful. Among brothers, I would make one distinction on Galatians 4, that being that rather than Law/Works vs. Grace/Faith, it seems a little more consistent to say Flesh/Works vs. Spirit/Grace/Faith. Since God's Law is eternal (I am not saying we must keep all of the Mosaic covenant, because that is literally impossible), we cannot put anything in opposition to it. However, our flesh, whether it is in direct opposition to God's Law, or we in our own flesh try to obey God's law outwardly without a regenerate spirit, we will be rejected because we have no atonement for our sins within ourselves. However, if we understand Paul to be teaching that there is nothing we can do in our flesh to fulfill God's promises, no matter how righteous our works appear to us or others, then we can see more clearly that God fulfills His promises because He initiates the promises unilaterally. We simply need to trust in His Word and His character, walk in the Spirit and not after the flesh (our own strength and perceived wisdom) and His promise will be fulfilled because He cannot deny Himself. Then we will be able (through a new heart and a new spirit) to walk in His commandments, as Ezekiel has proclaimed. (36:26) Thank you again for these videos and resources. I will continue to listen and share. Blessings!

This is exactly how I interrupt these Verses thank you

This is a fantastic explanation.

Swing by swing, the axe of truth is being laid to the root of Calvinism in these latest videos. Keep swinging, Leighton!

Read all of Obadiah. An eye opener. Everyone is given the opportunity to turn to God. Jesus said many times : follow me. Those who refuse to obey are condemning themselves. God is Love!

I look forward to the video Leighton. I am not sure what content you will provide in this video, but it would be great to see aspects of this addressed from the origin of the statement as well, "Malachi." I had recently been challenged to its use in Malachi. And as I researched why this statement was used in Malachi...its seemed to completely disarm how Calvinists use it. I don't recall a sermon or any material approaching this statement from the book of Malachi. In any case, I am looking forward to your video and just thought to mention this because I don't recall it previously introduced into the body of the debate. Blessings.

Esau received the blessing of reconciliation with the brother he hated.

This is helpful and encouraging. God is so good!

JEREMIAH 18:6-10 is the best passage in all the Bible that I know that explains Romans 9:21. Then read Jonah. He was sent to tell the Ninevites that in 40 days God was going to destroy them. They repented and God spared them. They are a great example of Jeremiah 18:7-8. Obadiah was to warn Edom that God was going to destroy them. If they would have repented as Nineveh, God would have spared them also.

It's important to note Paul's inversion of the typology here: Jacob now refers to the Gentiles who are coming into fellowship via the new covenant and Esau actually refers to Israel aka Jacob, who has been temporarily cut out "until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in." This is Paul's thinking, and it's not particularly logical by our Western standards, but it's revelation nonetheless and explains well God's whimsical lack of respect for the principle of primogeniture. Evidence of this inversion is that he states that this relationship of love-hate in the Jacob-Esau generation follows the same pattern as the selection of the younger in preference to the older in the previous one, Isaac and Ishmael, though Paul doesn't state this explicitly. He repeats the same sentiment in Galatians 5, freely (very freely) expanding the typology, connecting Hagar (Ishmael's servant mother) to the Jews in slavery to the law (Sinai) and "the Jerusalem which now is." None of this is even hinted at in the Old Testament scriptures concerning Hagar. Paul is putting his own divinely guided interpretation on the selection of the two younger sons in the patriarchal lineage. In both cases, the message should be clear--the Gentiles are the younger sons who are given preference for the hearing of the Gospel and the righteousness which is by faith in it. Israel is now cut out, but not forever (Romans 11). "Hate" on the part of God toward the first born is meant to be an hyperbole which calls attention to some covenantal mystery. This new covenant is so staggeringly preferential that the old is by contrast akin to being hated by God.

Thank God for Dr. Flowers!

Thank you ❤I was a Calvanist until this video 📹 Christ set me free. Calvanism is modern day Phariseeism. I hated being a Calvanist......

I am honestly trying to understand this position, one of my friends is heavy on this and has asked me to watch this stuff. But here are some things that confused me 1 at 7:53 - he says that Galatians demonstrates the meaning in Romans. Surely he misspoke. He tries to add some context to Romans 9 from Romans 9 later to support his view. But that verse is barely enough and it's not clear to me that they relate. To me it shows that when Paul intends to be figurative he makes it plain, for that's what he did in Galatians. But it's not so plain in Romans that is his intent. 2. What then is the meaning of what Paul is saying about God's election in these verses? 3. Why does Paul make the effort to make sure we are aware that there is no works for either nation yet (v11) if not to be unconditional? Or rather on the condition of him who calls? 4. It seems a bit foolish to think that Calvinists don't know that there are multiple meanings of the word hate or hated or the word love. But only one meaning of love is used in this video. Distinctions between God's love for his people, and his love for all I think must be made by all Christians. But this video seems to act as if one is the same as the other. 5. If we are to err to defend God's character why choose defending his morality, and not his agency, or his omnipotence, or his omniscience.

Beautiful emphasis Leighton on pointing out Gen / Mal combo in Romans 9. That is like being served filet mignon of the scripture :)

Listening to MacArthur on predestination I'm shocked at his teaching and how he views salvation. How does MacArthur even know he's among the elect. In MacArthur's world God might simply use MacArthur to bring the elect while he is not among them. Good luck with that belief.

So basically when God told Moses that he will have mercy on whom he will cannot and should not be taken literally?

Explained beautifully

God doesnt want any to perish but its our choice whether to believe or not after hearing the gospel

".. two nations ... and two manner of people..." This sort of OT typology goes all the way back to Cain and Abel.

The most troubling verse to me is “it does not matter who wills or runs, but God who has mercy.”

John 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” Arminian heretics rely on their self righteousness to be saved.

This was by FAR THE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST CALVINISM IVE EVER HEARD

I have questioned calvanism for years. Much of the leadership in my church are Calvanists. I see both sides in scripture and I have seen holes in both arminianism and calvanism. I've become intrigued by your your term "provisionism". It has seemed to me that an alternative has to existed. I never till now knew it had a name. Thank you.

Even if God hated him, he gave him a great blessing, he reconciled with the brother he hated, how many Christians have been blessed like Esau.

The difficulty I have with this defense is that it only talks about Gods love, and doesn’t paint all of Gods character to help us understand the text. What we have to use to measure this topic is Gods perfect justice. God is independent of His creatures and exercises dominion solely by His own authority. We cannot make God do anything. The Bible is clear that no one is good, no not one. All have fallen short of the glory of God. He does not have to save anyone, because rightly so we don’t deserve it, rather it is a miracle that He has saved anyone at all! Our wages have merited us condemnation. So when balancing Gods love and justice we have to remember He is perfect in both and that was demonstrated on the cross. Jesus took on the wrath for all who believe by imputing all sin from all Christian’s of all time into Himself but He did not take on the wrath for those who will not believe, which is why they remain dead in their sins and trespasses and are destined for hell where they will meet Gods perfect justice, namely His judgement. However, those that believe also receive Gods perfect justice because their belief in Jesus clothes them in His righteousness, He has drank their destined wrath fully and that perfect work of Christ Is accounted to their account. The God of the Old Testament is no different then the God of the new. Jesus is the flesh and bone human example of this. Perfectly loving, perfectly just. It is clear that God elects and has a group of people called “the elect” that He chooses to have mercy on by drawing them to Himself and giving them to Jesus (His sheep). He removes their hardened heart and spiritual blinders from the enemy, gives them the gift of faith and repentance and saves them from their helpless spiritual bondage to sin. It is also clear from Romans 1 that though man is dead in their sins and trespasses, they know God exists and choose to suppress the truth. Gods law has been written on every man’s heart, all all of creation testifies that their is a God so they are without excuse. All humans have a responsibility for their choice regarding faith and will be rewarded or punished based on their decision. How these two intermingle is somehow perfected in Gods sovereignty in a way that doesn’t cause God to sin, and for humans to be fully responsible for their choice.

Hi, can you do one for the wheat and the tares?

Can you do one on Ephesians 2:1-3

The background music is distracting. Please consider avoiding it in the future. Your voice is just fine. Thanks

Thank you for your diligent work Dr. Flowers. God bless.

The reason God said Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated is because Esau gave up his first born birth right for a simple meal. Because God was going to send His first born and only Son to be sacrificed for all of mankind. Remember when Abraham was told to offer Isaac as a sacrifice and he was a second away from doing it there was a ram in the bush? These stories in the Scriptures was God testing to see how far they would go. Abraham was stopped because God was the only one who could fulfill the sacrifice for all mankind, He just wanted to see the heart of man on the issue. God was like no Abraham I'm the only one who can fulfill the sacrifice of My first born and only Son. Esau was hated because he gave up his first born birth right. What would have happened if Jesus gave up His birth right as the Son of God? That's the story of Jacob and Esau. God's very heart and mind is in the old testament along with revelation of Jesus throughout the old testament and revealed in the New Testament.

I thank God for you brother

Definitely election of a nation who the messiah comes from. I agree that this is not actual hate of the individual, but of the people who would stand against his chosen line. The individual and his people were blessed until they went against God's chosen people. The individuals of the nation probably could have had salvation as long as it was through blessing Israel who possessed the prophets, law and the word of God.

This is a breath of fresh air!

Excellent message and very true! I'm praying more people see this truth and share it. God bless you.

Would be comical to see Esau in heaven, in the presence of the Lord and just smile at the Calvinists.

Unfortunately my pastor is a 4 point Calvinist, and believes that God chooses, or that it is His will that some people will go to Heaven and that others will go to Hell, which is deeply disturbing to me. Are there any questions that you might recommend me asking him to challenge his theological point of view, or personal advice regarding this matter?

Excellent, but really, is music background really necessary?

Paul labors to gives us the context inside romans 9 that we need not reach outside of these verses to understand what he means. When Paul intends to speak idiomatically he tends to let us know. I see no indication here that he intended to do so, but instead used the terms literally. “That The purpose of God according to election might stand...” Brothers and sister, be careful here as not to twist the scriptures and re-define words to suit our desire to save ourselves rather than receiving the free gift of mercy and grace given us by our triune God. Our Lord will hold us accountable for the things we say and do with His word. I pray that the Spirit would reveal the truth in this matter to everyone who is sincerely seeking answers.

Another proof that this is not about individuals: Looking at the life of Esau, he goes from promising to kill his brother, to falling on his neck and weeping, and latter recognizing his error and leaving the land he surrendered to Jacob in order to avoid conflict between the peoples’. Is this the kind of change that can happen in a man without the love of God?

Great video...makes you wonder how anyone could think less about God than he does about his own children.

Thank you for these shorter versions-I especially like this one-we just called a new pastor to the church that I have been attending for 42 years and he is a strong Calvinist. He is a lovely man but I am disturb so much by this teaching that it is hard to sit thru some of his message even though they are very well prepared. I am not a theologian so arguing with proof texting of various verses would be futile for me-I am going to suggest this short video for him as he os teaching thru Romans right now.

They also misunderstood “works” as was intended by Paul. He was referring to 632 Jewish Commandments

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;)

For what it is worth, this is how I am able to understand it. The Bible mentions about as many times, our need and responsibility to choose, as it does the principle that we are predestined. So how can these two statements be compatible? Fortunately, most of the times predestination (or other similar principles) is mentioned, it adds the statement “through Jesus Christ.” This is the key phrase to understanding this principle. So how does it work? As far as I know, I didn’t exist before the beginning of time, so it is very difficult for me to imagine how I could have been predestined before the beginning of time, when I didn’t exist. However, I did have a representative who did exist before the beginning of time, and that is Jesus. So when Jesus came to our world as a man from Heaven, it is very easy for me to understand that He was predestined to return to eternity in Heaven. So when I decided to accept Jesus’ salvation, and His Spirit came into my life, I inherited his predestined position with His heavenly father in Heaven. So when we choose to accept Christ, we become predestined “through Jesus Christ.”

Was Esau saved at the end? If not, cant we say God hated him exactly like he said he did considering God knew what he was going to turn out to be right from the womb? Why even breathe life into him if he knew what he wud do? Just trying to understand. (I m not a calvinist)

Thanks, Leighton. Much needed these days!

I would like to see more videos of you teaching the "Traditionalist view" straight from the Bible with minimal reference to Calvinism. Instead of teaching this from a stance of being against Calvinism, just teach it as what the Bible says.

1:10: Did God ever say to Rebekah that He hated her unborn baby Esau? No. So, the answer to the question of whether God's hatred of a baby is either "literal or idiomatic" is *neither*. What God actually did say about "Jacob" and "Esau" at Malachi 1.2-4 was not about unborn babies but about their descendants. In other words, God's statement that He loved "Jacob" and hated "Esau" was regarding the nations of Israel and Edom, which the context of Malachi goes on to explain as the literal (albeit conditional) hatred of the nation of Edom (Ezekiel 35.15), as being a people with whom God is "forever indignant," which the Book of Obadiah further explains as the basis. Note that it's common in Scripture for Israel and Edom to be referenced by their tribal heads. (Isaiah 10.21; Jeremiah 30.7) For that reason, Calvinists get confused and think God was referring to a hatred of unborn babies when yet instead God was actually talking about the descendants, which is directly related to Paul's point in Romans 9:6, when Paul quoted Malachi 1.2-4 at Romans 9.13. The dispute with Calvinists is that while they acknowledge that Paul's source material in Malachi 1.2-4 was about the descendants, Calvinists insist that Paul changed the meaning (in an "apostolic interpretation") to instead mean the unborn babies. This is verifiably incorrect based upon Romans 9:12, in which Paul pairs the two quotes in Romans 9.12 and 9.13 with "just as" in order to show their relationship together, and the quote in Romans 9.12 was not about the unborn babies but about the descendants. (2 Samuel 8.14) Hence, a Calvinist's suggestion of an "apostolic interpretation" that changes the original meaning is verifiably wrong. If Romans 9.12's prophecy had instead been about the unborn babies, then and only then would Calvinists have an argument. Paul would never attempt an "apostolic interpretation" which reverses an original meaning of Scripture because then (a) he would be accused by his critics of inventing a new religion, and (b) it would be counter-productive to then try to use the Scriptures to persuade his fellow Jews that the Scriptures pointed to Jesus. In other words, it was absolutely vital to Paul that he *not* reverse the original meaning, because it would destroy his entire objective of evangelizing the Jews from the Scriptures that the Scriptures prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Plus, Calvinists don't realize how Romans 9.13 proves Paul's argument in Romans 9.6. It's the unbelieving Jews who would object that God's word must have failed and God must have been unfair for breaking His promise to Abraham to unconditionally save all his descendants, but which is a bewildering presumption on the part of the unbelieving Jews since their own Scriptures speak of only a "remnant" being saved, not to mentioning the judicial hardening of Isaiah 6.9-10. The very fact of the condemnation of the Edomites "Esau [Edom] I hated" proves, conclusively, that there is no unconditional birthright assurance of salvation, simply on account of being a physical child or Abraham. One must instead believe like Abraham in order to have assurance of salvation from God.

Hallelujah

I have started rereading Romans. Do Calvinists just ignore the whole first four chapters of Romans?