Soteriology 101 Rom. 9:13 Decalvinized Response

Today we are looking into Leighton Flowers with Soteriology 101's attempt to "decalvinize" romans 9:13.

Afterward, we will be listening to a sermon by Martin Lloyd Jones on the topic while we play Medieval Dynasty in the Background.

There will be a section for live questions afer we view Leighton's video, and then I will be in the chat until late. We will be running various programs through the night, typically very old sermons and entire chapters of a dramatized audio Bible.

@Soteriology101 @TwitchyTheologian @tgtengage @reformedpilgrim
#bible #god #medievaldynasty

[roguecalvinist]

Sorry for the quality here, I didn't realize it was so choppy. The whole thing shut down at the end, and ended up being an error in obs. I'll see if there are some updates on missing

[justinecker]

You kept saying “Jacob I have hated.” Now I don’t know what to believe anymore. 🤣 I’m just kidding, but it was making me laugh. May the Lord bless you and give you perseverance to continue the good work you do.

[reformedpilgrim]

Leighton's slide at about 8:00 is ludicrous. Where is he getting this claim from? Generally speaking, a lot of Reformed folks tend to hold to Postmillennial or Amillennial eschatology. Because of this, we would reject Leighton's claim outright. Even if we are some version of Premillennial, we cannot deny that the numbers of believers in heaven witnessed by John are incalculable. There will be a HUGE population with God in eternity.

Nothing personal against Leighton as an individual, but his reasoning tends to be rather slipshod and weak. The wording he chooses is rather appealing, but if we spend enough time with the truth, we will see the faults in his position. Namely, the idea of "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" being only an idiom doesn't fly. The reason here is that Leighton treats "loved" literally, but "hated" figuratively. This is inconsistent on its face.

And as Spurgeon pointed out in the sermon you shard the other day, Paul is referring to the twins in Rebekah's womb by the words _"though they were not yet born"._ Paul is speaking in a literal fashion here. If we look at God's own words in Malachi 1, He seems to be referring literally to Esau, as well. What is the consequence of God's hatred for Esau? Again and again, God tears down that which Edom builds.

Leighton seems squeamish about God hating Esau before he was even born. Why? The text says it. We can thus accept it. Leighton forgets that God has enemies. Who is one of them? Esau. How far does this hatred extend? To Esau's descendants and to their own hill country. Nothing about this should upset us. We can be in awe that God has loved anyone at all! But Leighton does not seem to want to deal with God's justice, so it goes ignored, as if God were only soft and fluffy.

Here's an excerpt from C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, specifically for Leighton, since he appreciates analogies:
“Who is Aslan?” asked Susan.
“Aslan?” said Mr. Beaver, “Why don’t you know? He’s the King. . . . It is he, not you, that will save Mr. Tumnus. . . .”
“Is—is he a man?” asked Lucy.
“Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion.”
“Ooh!” said Susan. “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake, ” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
“I’m longing to see him, ” said Peter, “even if I do feel frightened when it comes to the point.”

[SaltyApologist]

What these dudes refuse to acknowledge, because it completely refutes their point, Is that even if all the passage means is that God prefers Jacob over Esau and that God chose to provide unmerited grace to Jacob and not Esau, then it STILL affirms the reformed interpretation. lol. It means more than that, but even on their watered down version, God chooses, God decides, it’s not up to anyone BUT GOD. Which is the entire point of Romans 9. That salvation is BY GOD, THROUGH GOD, FOR GOD. All of it, is to glory of His name! I have never seen people so determined to rob God.

[SaltyApologist]

Leighton…..Dude. Is. Not. A. Serious. Person. Period 😉