Just as an aside, I finished downloading the ESV Audio Bible ("Hear the Word") narrated by David Heath. Other than something like flashcards, I'm not sure what other invention man can come up with to better assist mass-Scripture memory. I've done a number of narration contract jobs for various advertising purposes, and I know what goes into good narration (I've even attempted my own audio Bible at one point). Heath's work is excellent, and I find it much more comfortable to listen to for long periods than a more dramatic and eccentric voice like Max McLean.

On the less exciting side, the mishandling of presuppositional apologetics continues. Glenn Hendrickson has a decent response here. Essentially, Arminians are presenting presuppositional apologetics without either (a) presenting the primary sources of the debate, and pretending the basics of presuppositional apologetics (and dozens of direct quotes by Bahnsen) are their own ideas, or (b) pretending as if Arminianism can peacefully and productively co-exist with presuppositional apologetics.

It can't. Granted, thinking presuppositionally is quite flexible. For example, Paul Copan in his excellent book True For You But Not For Me comes from the Bill Craig/classicalist line of thought, and yet demonstrates "thinking presuppositionally" - addressing people's worldview and presuppositions in a way the leaves the skeptic challenged. However, one cannot avoid the fact that presuppositional apologetics emerges from Reformed theology in at least two major respects.

First is the rejection of natural theology. The unbeliever has knowledge of God, but due to his depravity (the first point of Calvinism TULIP) he suppresses it. The classical arguments will never suffice for the same reason 66 books of evidence won't suffice: he's spiritually dead, and he needs to be shown his bias against God before gaining a proper orientation of life. Without the Calvinist/biblical teaching of depravity, one could adhere to classicalism as much as presuppositionalism regarding this central issue.

Second is the absolute sovereignty of God and Lordship of Christ coupled with sola scriptura. Classical apologetics is built from a Roman Catholic foundation that does not require that a believer (a) develop an apologetic method from Scripture or (b) begin with Scripture to engage in apologetics. Both are distinctive of presuppositional apologetics. In short, presuppositional Arminians (ie Kerrigan Skelly, Tim Chaffey, etc.) are simply unaware of their inconsistency, and need to come into grips with the fact that our theology gives rise to our apologetic methodology. If that can be admitted, it is clear that only presuppositional apologetics fits Reformed theology - that is, only biblical apologetics fits biblical theology.

Regarding Romans 9:19, we know that it is not wise to single out one verse apart from full context. The issue of Jacob and Esau and their being loved or hated by God before their birth has occupied more than one discussion throughout history. If one confines the argument to portions of Romans 9, it does sound like God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation, but Romans 9 does not occur in a vacuum, and the rest of Scripture furnishes the balance. God's foreknowledge enters into the equation at this point. Some theologians have stated that it would be accurate to translate the passage, "Jacob have I chosen, but Esau have I rejected." Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.

Scripture states: 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---(Romans 9:11)

Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33