If You Read Carefully, Liars Expose Themselves

[anvilhauler]

Do you believe Lucifer had free will? God knew what he would do and what he would become before He created him, but do you honestly believe God intended for that to happen?

I'm not sure if this question was for me or Raymond, but the subject is an interesting one.  Free choice still has to come in to play.

Romans 9 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 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;) 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. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as one of his twelve disciples even though he knew he was going to betray him. Poor Judas?  Nah, not really.  Judas chose?  Like Pharoah, Judas had already made a lot of bad choices before God decided to use him as a part of His plan.

John 12 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Interesting topic as it sort of fits in with my work.  I get asked to make things which I know will never work, but I have to go ahead and make them anyway.  Didn't work?    Wow, who ever thought that would happen?

For God it is His intention that all should come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved but He knew that wasn't what was going to happen.  I would have to put Lucifer in the same category.

Matthew 25 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels

It is interesting that the statement was made that the everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his angels and it didn't mention that it was for unredeemed man as well.

[Jeanne]

Actually, the question was for Raymond, but thanks for your input, Kevin. You always have some very interesting insight.

That now raises a question; was hell created at the same time as the rest of creation knowing that there would be a need for it or did God wait until Lucifer rebelled? (I don't want to derail this thread from the topic of whether free will exists or not but that was just something that came to me as I was reading your post.)

[Raymond]

I'm working in a response for Chris ATM but I wanted to chime in on this, since I chew on it a lot.

Just like with mankind, I believe Lucifer had a will of his own, but how that will was exercised into action is dependant on his nature and how he is affected by various influences. Did Lucifer fall before or after the creation of the earth? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've found no indication in scripture of his fall until afterward.

*[[Eze 28:13]] KJV*
---> Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
 every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
---> Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
---> thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 
---> Thou wast perfect in thy ways
---> from the day that thou wast created,
---> till iniquity was found in thee.

God had to have created Lucifer in a perfect state, but obviously also had to have allowed for Lucifer's capacity to sin, otherwise his fall would have been impossible. So how does someone in a sinless state sin when they have no sin nature (preference to sin)?

[anvilhauler]

God had to have created Lucifer in a perfect state, but obviously also had to have allowed for Lucifer's capacity to sin, otherwise his fall would have been impossible. So how does someone in a sinless state sin when they have no sin nature (preference to sin)?

Quite easy really.  Not following instructions.  God's creations are not automatons but rather He gave them free will.  God had every right to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and have it present as a death trap but it should never have been a problem because when you are told not to touch something then you don't touch it.

Genesis 2 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Raymond]

That doesn't really answer my question about Lucifer though... If he was perfect and sinless, what would cause him to sin if he had no sin nature?

[creationliberty]

All you're doing is shifting the example from men to angels. You're still talking about created beings. The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.

Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation. It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it. That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.

[Jeanne]

Exodus 20:11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Colossians 1:16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

This tells me that Lucifer, along with all the other angels (all things that are in heaven, along with heaven itself), was created during the six days of creation week.

As to how Lucifer, who was not created with a sin nature could sin, you could just as easily ask how Adam and Eve, who were also created perfect and sinless with no sin nature could sin.

Lucifer's sin was pride; he wanted to be in the place of God instead of being content with all he had been given and this was exactly the tactic he used on Eve. He told her that God was holding out on her.

Exodus 3:5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

He was also jealous that Man had been given dominion over the earth instead of him, and he effectively gained that dominion when Eve listened to him rather than to God and Adam followed suit.

As Chris has stated many times, the law would have been totally unnecessary unless we had been given the will to either obey or disobey. Adam and Eve only had ONE law; don't eat from this particular tree. Free will cannot be exercised unless boundaries are placed upon it and people can choose whether they want to respect or reject those boundaries.

What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.

[anvilhauler]

All you're doing is shifting the example from men to angels. You're still talking about created beings. The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.

Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation. It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it. That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.

I'm glad that you both took the chance to respond to this Chris and Jeanne.  I have just finished work for the day and unless someone else had written anything then I was just going to leave it as a pointless discussion for the same reason you gave that the example had just been shifted from men to angels and that can then only have the end logic that God is a sinner.

[Raymond]

= The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.

You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any action. By perfect I don't mean 'without the capacity to sin', I said that already. I'm using the word perfect that's in scripture. Get its meaning from the context.

If man does have free will choice, and God knows the future, then God intentionally gave it to him knowing beforehand that he would use it to sin and bring death into the world. How is that not 'by God came death" and heresy? 

[Raymond]

= Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation.

Entirely incorrect. I can make far more sense of things now than I could trying to hammer out how synergism explains things.

= It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it.

He ordains the conversation, but is not the source of the errors. We're the source of any errors because of our imperfect nature. You keep misrepresenting the relationship between nature and will, but I'm used to that by now.

= That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.

Absolutely correct that we are talking about two different Gods. One is sovereign over everything and the other bows to man's will.

[Raymond]

= What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.

Not at all. Because I have a personal will, I am responsible for my actions. My nature dictates how I exercise that will in any given situation.

[Jeanne]

And that sounds exactly like those who try to justify their sin by saying 'God made me this way.'

[Raymond]

Where do you find any justification for sin? I just said I'm responsible for all my actions. Me. I am. The one that performs them.

[creationliberty]

You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any action. By perfect I don't mean 'without the capacity to sin', I said that already. I'm using the word perfect that's in scripture. Get its meaning from the context.

1. You didn't define the word 'perfect' for us, as you originally claimed that you wanted to define words used, you just pushed it away.
2. You said "You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any actions," and didn't bother explaining what you meant. (i.e. hiding information) Shortly, I will explain this in more detail, and normally, I would not even respond to this laziness from you, but I do so for the sake of everyone else reading so they can see your error.

After this comment you just made, I can tell there's a serious problem within you (i.e. sinful one) because that kind of thing typically comes out of the mouth of a scoffer who is hiding his true beliefs. I'm going to try to explain this for a final time, and then I've got other work to do because I can't talk to someone who can't be reasoned with, skirts answers, and dodges questions, which is what you've been doing, and I believe you are knowledgeable enough to know that you've been doing it; that's why I'm being firm here.

There are only three entities that control the actions of mankind: God, devils, or man. The reason you tried to shift things from men to angels is because you don't have an answer for the Scripture I gave you:
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
-1Co 15:21
You knew you could not refute this, and therefore, you are trying to find a way to hold on to your heresy. The very fact that you're making excuses is showing that there is something sinful you're trying to hold on to, and I haven't yet been able to figure out specifically what it is; I only have a few theories. So since I DO NOT like to assume, let me answer your accusations of assumption.

1. If God controls the actions of man, then by God came sin and death, and man had nothing to do with it. It is a contradiction to say that God compelled us to sin and then brought death upon us of His own will, because if that's true, the entire Bible is a lie. I know you don't believe that God sins on behalf of everyone else, which is why you're dodging that subject.
2. If devils control the actions of men, then by devils came sin and death, and it really isn't mankind's fault in the first place. You can blame it on devils if you want, but again, it's heresy:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-Rom 5:12
Sin came by man, and death came by man. You either believe that, or you don't, and that belief is your personal choice. As God did with the Jews, He puts before us life or death, blessings or curses, and we must choose.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
-Deut 30:19
(As a side note, if you believe it is devils, then you also believe it is God, since you believe that God controls the actions of devils as well.)
3. If man controls the actions of men, then men are at fault for sin, they have a choice in the matter, and because they have a choice, they have to take responsibility. This is why the Savior means so much to us, is because God has to come in and fix what we cannot fix for ourselves.
Raymond, read carefully: If you don't believe option #3, then not only do you not believe Scripture, but also, repentance would have to be a lie. There is no reason why a man should be sorry for something he didn't do, and I already know that you know that you don't believe that you're not solely responsible for your own choices, as you stated in your introduction post:
"Ever since then I've been in repentance, unable to justify my sin, only able to grieve over it while looking forward to the time when my flesh won't cause me to sin anymore. I still can't wrap my head around why God would want me, but I'm so thankful that He loves me enough to put up with me and chasten me when I needed it."
That contradicts everything you told us in this thread. If you believed everything you were telling us in this thread, then the following should have been what you said:
"Ever since then God put me in a state of repentance, unable to justify the devil's sin within me, only God making me grieve over it while also making me look forward to the time when devils won't cause me to sin anymore. God has not given me enough understanding to wrap my head around why He would want me, but God has also created in me thankfulness that He loves me enough to put up with the devils and chasten them when they needed it."
This is one of the many reasons we have people do an introduction post, so when it comes down to a doctrinal discussion, we can check and see if they're being consistent with us. So it's time to put away the false doctrines you learned when you turned to "Creflo Dollar, Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince, etc," and turn to the Living God in His Word.

If man does have free will choice, and God knows the future, then God intentionally gave it to him knowing beforehand that he would use it to sin and bring death into the world. How is that not 'by God came death" and heresy?

You don't have children, do you? I hope not, because if you do, and you haven't figured this out, then you don't understand the very basic concept of love. This is something I think you should ask the parents here, and I encourage them to answer it for you if they choose.

If a parent did not put in a child's hands something dangerous when the time comes that they are ready for it, then a child would never learn anything. Once a child is old enough, if we only ever allowed them to use plastic toy knifes for their safety, they would never learn to cook. If we only allowed them to test miniature toy cars, they would never learn to drive. Putting control in the hands of a child always comes with risk, but a loving parent does it anyway, watching closely from the sidelines, and when the child messes up, suffering the consequences of his own foolishness, the parents discipline their beloved children, and show them mercy by being there to help make things right again.

Love requires free will and choice; there is no love without it.

[Dee Babbitt]

Chris is right, on all counts.  He's been given wisdom, and he chooses to be kind, taking the time and helping each of us to learn more about our Almighty Father in Heaven.  Chris' examples are beautifully and truthfully spoken; and his last reply, regarding the love God has for His children, sums everything up, simply.


Of my three sons, only one follows God.  The oldest two have chosen to not follow God.  Every day I pray for them, with tears in my eyes and great sadness in my heart.  The three of them were taught about our Father in Heaven, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Each of my sons received the same, unconditional love.  But, they each made different choices. 


Joshua 24:15   And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Job 15:5   For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty.

Job 34:4   Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good.

Job 34:33   Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I:
therefore speak what thou knowest.

Proverbs 1:29   For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Proverbs 3:31   Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.

Isaiah 7:15   Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Isaiah 56:4   For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take
hold of my covenant;

Isaiah 65:12   Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not
answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.


We have been given free will; we have choices.

[creationliberty]

Raymond is smart enough that he could keyword search the word 'choose' and find all the Scriptures talking about it too. That's not going to help him. But I do want to emphasize that the fact God knew what would happen, but allowed us the free will to choose anyway, only demonstrates His great patience and lovingkindness, especially since He has all the power to force us to do His will like robots. This is the same thing Jesus demonstrated; having the power to take control of the entire world, but refraining from using that power for the sake of everyone, that all might come to repentance and believe on Him.

By that reasoning, if God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, then if you believe mankind has no free will and choice, then you must believe the Bible is a lie, otherwise, everyone would repent.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2Pe 3:9

In the end, sin is the reason people hold on to false doctrine, and there are only two reasons I can find that people hold on to that doctrine. It's either that they're defending a preacher (i.e. loving tradition more than God), or they're lazy because it gives them an excuse to do nothing. (Or it could be a combination of both; hard to tell.) I haven't been able to find any other reason for it yet.

[creationliberty]

I was careful to not write in a manner that Raymond would find offensive and if it were me I don't think I would find Jeanne's posting offensive either.  I hope Raymond does come back.

Alright, it's been about two weeks, so now we can say he's probably gone. He started making some one-liner comments like he had a chip on his shoulder before he left, and that's a pattern we've seen here many times before. Again, this is why we require most people to come here and discuss things with us before they join our church; not to say that Raymond was joining us because that was never brought up, but I'm saying that the people we often (at first) think are with us, turn out to be not with us after a bit of conversation.

What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.
Not at all. Because I have a personal will, I am responsible for my actions. My nature dictates how I exercise that will in any given situation.

That was a total cop-out and he should be ashamed of himself. That's why I started getting firm with him; when people start deceiving others, I don't have a lot of patience left. That was a sleight-of-hand trick that he thought would fool others, and not only was it a little surprising (because I didn't expect to see him do that), I don't appreciate that garbage, especially here where there are other Christians around the world that read this forum.

Raymond knows that by "free will," we mean that we have the ability to make a choice that is apart from God's will. That's why I demonstrated to Raymond, from the Scripture, that God is not willing that any man should perish, but wills that all men come to repentance in 2 Peter 3:9, and thus, we have a free will to choose that which is not God's will. That's not hypothetical, that's simple, and can be proven Scripturally.
Instead of saying he has a "free will," so to avoid any agreement with us, while trying to appear reasonable on the outside (as if he does not believe in heresy), he says he has "personal will," which, as far as I'm aware, he did not define. Again, he says on the surface that he is "responsible for his actions," but while at the same time saying that it's not really his responsibility because it's the fault of "his nature." The reason I pointed out to him that either God was responsible for his sin nature (which is heresy) or devils were responsible (which is an indirect version of the same heresy), is because the only option left is that we make our own choices, but he desperately wants to avoid that, as he demonstrated earlier when he quoted Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary on the word 'will'.

Webster's 1828:
WILL, noun [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.
---> The will is directed or influenced by the judgment.
The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.
---> In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.

Here's where he gets really deceptive. I wanted to cover more on this earlier, but I was waiting a couple of weeks to see if he would give a response, or at least repent of his heresy. He obviously did not, decided to depart, and worse still, in my opinion, he never gave his reasoning for why he was holding so tightly onto his heresy, which is the core of what I want to know.

Raymond highlighted the part about the will being directed or influenced by the judgment, and then said: "If the will is directed by the judgement consider all the possible influences on that judgement!" That has NOTHING to do with the argument that's being made to Raymond. This is a red herring, and you can tell because if you keep reading Webster's explanation in the next sentence, he says:
"the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue"
So the either we decided to disobey God, or God decided and disobeyed Himself on our behalf. There's more under the word 'will' in that dictionary, so I "decided" (if you will, or perhaps, under Raymond's belief, by the will and power of God to disprove Raymond's false beliefs) to keep reading to point #2:
2. Choice; determination
Webster starts with a full explanation, and then simplifies it in point 2 that it is a choice, but isn't it interesting that Raymond just skipped over that? In fact, the very first thing Webster suggests to do is go to the VERB portion of the word 'will'. Okay, let's go down to that and see what he says:
To determine; to decide in the mind that something shall be done or forborne
Raymond was simply trying to avoid saying we have choice or make decisions, and yet, the very source he was using agrees with the doctrine I'm teaching.

The final deception of Raymond (both deceiving us and himself) is found in his first response on this thread:

The choices that God offers reveal the nature of the one deciding one course over another, or whether to obey or disobey. A regenerated spirit's nature is to obey and please God, but unregenerated flesh's nature is to disobey God and please itself, so there's the warfare. An dead spirit and unregenerated flesh obviously would have no reservations against absolutely revelling in sin.

choice (n): the act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from two or more things that which is preferred; or the determination of the mind in preferring one thing to another; the power of choosing, option
Raymond says that a man who is unregenerated with choose the evil.
Raymond says that a man who is regenerated will choose the good.
Raymond says that both are the nature of man, and that the choices God offers them (which means Raymond DOES believe in choice), reveals their nature. The problem with all this is that God CHANGES the nature of a man upon regeneration, and what Raymond is skipping over is how/why that happens.
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
-Eph 2:1-3
I believe this is where the disagreement lies: I believe that God can bring the Holy Spirit to a man to give him understanding of his sin, but a man has the power of choice, which liberty God gives to all men, and men can REJECT the Holy Spirit of God. (This has to do with a man seeing his sin and making a choice, which Paul covers in Romans 7, SEE HERE: http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#7) This is why the only unforgivable sin in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God because when a man accuses the Holy Spirit, the grace and healing, of being of the devil, claiming that the Spirit of God is wicked or evil, there is no hope of his salvation.

Raymond is holding on to the belief that a man has no choice in the matter if the Holy Spirit of God comes to a man. That's simply ignorance, and likely a heresy he's hanging onto for "personal will" reasons he will not disclose. A man cannot choose to do the good without the Holy Spirit of God, nor can a man call Jesus "Lord" (not in the generic sense, by which many call Jesus "Lord" under false pretenses [Mat 7:21-23], but in the sense of true faith in the heart) without the Holy Spirit of God. However, a man can reject the Holy Spirit of God, which God gives men free will to do, otherwise, there is no reason for commandments, no reason for judgment, no reason for evangelism, no reason for study, and definitely no reason to argue about this doctrine.

So Raymond did say that he agreed with me that we're both worshiping two different gods. His is a god of heresy that contradicts himself, and we worship and serve the Perfect Living God who was kind enough to not make us into robots, knowing that true love is only found in liberty and choice, choosing us first, and then allowing us the choice to choose Him back.

Personally, I believe the reason men like Raymond hold on to these false doctrines is to justify laziness. After all, if everything is by nature, and there is no free will in man, then what's the point in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others? If he will be honest, there is no purpose in it at that point.

If any of you want to learn more about this, Paul explains more about it in Romans 9. I have notes walking through those verses in the following link if you want to take a look:
http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#9