Esau I HATED!!!!!

Greetings

So Romans 9 is a lie? It clearly says that God hated Esau. Is that a lie or do your presuppositions simply require you to deny this scripture in order to maintain what you have decided to believe? </font>[/QUOTE]TexasSky was right! You Calvinists don't listen. I myself have made several posts showing that you cannot take God's election of national Israel and apply it to individuals. This is a monstrous violation of linguistics.

Why is it that you fail to see God's election of national Israel? Your run from the truth tactic ends up in the attributes of God. Love/hate of a person is not the issue. Read the whole text.

Lloyd

 

What silliness. Grace is the basis of the plan of redemption. Unless God moved first to redeem us from sin, no one would be saved. Have you never noticed that the active voices of justification all pertain to God alone? Have you never noticed that the passive voices of justification all pertain to humans alone? Have you never tried to harmonize these? Humans passively receive God’s gift of eternal life through faith. It is not an active work – that is God’s domain. </font>[/QUOTE] Except for the "silliness" part, this is absolutely correct.

God's grace in regeneration is the first cause for our salvation. Our decision is not.

And you accuse me of making extreme statements? As with most other non-calvinists here, you prefer to argue against straw men. I never said that "it is crammed down your throat", did I?

If someone rescues a completely helpless person from the ocean, is that "cramming" it down their throat?

Better yet, the Bible uses birth as an analogy for salvation. Is it cramming life down the baby's throat for them to be conceived and born without making a decision on either?

I know what they say. Do you typically use dishonest tactics like suggestions of ignorance and straw men rather than dealing with what calvinists actually believe and say? If so, I have enough of those types to deal with already.

Nope. It is only grace if it is not of merit. If it is ultimately the result of a good decision derived from the processes of our own minds... then it is merit.

BTW, I never said anything about arbitrary election. God does things according to His own good pleasure. I don't assume that He is arbitrary even when I don't know why He does what He does.

They will call it justice when judged by God according to their sin.

What value does this uninformed personal attack have?

You have not established that I am blind, steeped in denominational rhetoric, nor unbalanced in my view of sovereignty... and you also didn't answer my question.

My views are derived from scripture- I don't think I have ever had anyone from my denomination teach me calvinism.

You are free to have a different take- I will debate you but never deny that you have a right and responsibility over what you believe before God.

Your insenuations that I am ignorant because I don't agree with you... are based in ignorance.

 

Wrong! Do you deny the very scripture that says "Abraham believed (faith) and it was credited as righteousness (saved)"? This says nothing of being chosen, but the condition being Abraham's BELIEF. You go back and read it!</font>[/QUOTE] I have read and memorized Romans 4. But like all other scriptures, it must be taken in the context of the whole. God chose Abraham and called him out first.

 

Greetings

Not technically. What do you call it when you force your good intentions upon someone else? Whatever word you eventually choose, it isn’t grace.

Making God the source of regeneration before faith also makes God the source of UNregeneration. It is a natural implication that you Calvinists somehow cannot see. Moreover, if God has decreed everything, then we are but automatons following a well-devised script. Satan is sitting in the bleachers for God is now the dictator of all actions – even sin.

But here, you rhetorically run to “God is not the author of sin” as if this quote makes your system right. It actually exposes your blindness for you say “YES” and “NO” in the same breath and don’t know it.

God does not dictate. He doesn’t dictate who will be saved. He doesn’t dictate who will be damned. He doesn’t dictate your next thought. He does dictate that the one particular plan of redemption will be based on Jesus Christ alone. All who wish may freely enter therein.

Your views are derived from a violent abuse of linguistics that wrongly uses God’s election of national Israel and applies it to individuals. Big wrong. It is only ignorance when you are shown the error and refuse to see it.

Or is "ignorance" being to kind?
Lloyd

 

Greetings:

Again, the calling of Abraham was for the purposes of electing national Israel through which the Promised Seed would bring universal blessings. When this national calling was first extended to Abraham it had no bearing on his personal salvation. God was choosing a nation.

Abraham’s personal salvation came later at the moment of faith (Gen 15). This is not contradictory. We use the word "parallel."

You patently ignore CONTEXT and God’s eschatological purposes. God can do two things at once: national Israel and bunches of elections of individuals in Christ.

How many times must you be shown these two concepts before ignorance stops being ignorance?
Lloyd

 

I qoute verses..and that makes me a lair

Now thats sound

 

So Romans 9 is a lie? It clearly says that God hated Esau. Is that a lie or do your presuppositions simply require you to deny this scripture in order to maintain what you have decided to believe? </font>[/QUOTE]TexasSky was right! You Calvinists don't listen. I myself have made several posts showing that you cannot take God's election of national Israel and apply it to individuals. This is a monstrous violation of linguistics.</font>[/QUOTE] READ THE TEXT before accusing me of not listening!

The text says:

The election is of the patriarch- not the nation. It specifically says the elder shall serve the younger- that is a direct reference to Jacob and Esau, not their progeny.

You have to twist that passage completely to deny that it is speaking of those two individual human beings.

The nation of Israel was elect. And you are right, that is a different but related subject. However the patriarchs of that nation were also individually chosen, as was David, as was Solomon, etc, etc.

I don't. Why are you attempting to deny the very meanings of the words and context used in this passage?

I have not only read the text. At one time, I had memorized the first 10 chapters of Romans from the KJV word for word. It is a great exercise that only furthered my confidence in the doctrines of grace.

 

Not technically.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I didn't say it at all. The only attempt to cram anything down anyone's throat is those words you keep trying to stuff into my mouth.

Did Jesus "force" His good intentions on Lazarus who was physically dead? Apply your answer to the spiritually dead that are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Non sequitur. You make that assumption based on your biases.

Man is spiritually dead because of imputed sin just like Romans 5 declares.

Whatever you think a "natural implication" is... It doesn't follow that just because someone is regenerated by God physically or spiritually that He is somehow responsible for their death.

Maybe I should back up. Just what are you referring to as "UN"regeneration? I have never seen that term in the Bible... or anywhere else for that matter.

I never said that God decreed everything. Hyper calvinists believe this. Biblical calvinists do not.

For instance, God is not the author of sin. He allowed it but He did not cause it unless you want to argue the extreme abstract (which I guess isn't all that extreme for an arminian) that because God created knowing that it would happen that makes Him responsible for it happening.

Man has free will- except that his will is in bondage being dead in his sin. Regeneration frees man from that bondage.

I am not saying that we have no free will. I am saying that man will never of his own goodness use that free will to reconcile himself to God. We require the miracle of regeneration to live spiritually every bit as much as Lazarus needed the miracle of regeneration to live physically.

That's laughable. I have not said "YES" AND "NO" in the same breath. I have simply accepted and reconciled these things that scripture has to say on the subject.

God did not cause men to die. God did cause men to live. I hope we can both agree to this?

No. He frees and regenerates.

No. He elects, chooses, predestines, and foreknows who will be saved... at least that's what the Bible says.

Right. If all are damned and it is their fault and He saves some... the others are still damned and it is STILL THEIR FAULT.

The saved ones still deserve to be damned but by the grace of God they are not. Under your system, the saved ones had some measure of goodness within that caused them to believe... therefore they don't deserve to be damned anymore and they were saved because God recognized the merit of their choice.

No. But He does know and allow our next thoughts.

No it doesn't. That is far fetched. Romans 8 for example has nothing to do with the national election of Israel. Neither does Ephesians 1. Neither does John 1:13 or 1 Peter 1:2 or many other scriptures that either declare or imply God's election and means of securing His chosen.

You aren't showing me any errors. You are doing little more than declaring me wrong, setting up straw men arguments, then demanding that I agree with you.

Sorry. But you are going to have to put a real case together.

And BTW, if you want to convince me, you are still going to have to answer my question. Why do some believe while others don't? What about them? Where did the goodness to believe come from?

It is interesting that this sort of tactic is employed so frequently by non-calvinists when they can't prove their case from scripture.

I may be wrong. I am certainly fallible. But I am not ignorant and I am giving my honest reasons for believing as I do. Your tactics, while they may make you feel superior, have done nothing to refute my position.

You can drop the non-sense and actually attempt to answer my points or you can continue to undermine your own position by such arrogant statements.

 

ascund says....

It is only ignorance when you are shown the error and refuse to see it.

****************************
The ignorance of your post speaks louder than your point.

Are you sure your name is not wes?

 

TS, If you think I am wrong and can prove it then please stop repeating the demand that I agree with you and show me a good biblical case for believing that this text means something other than what the words in their context mean.

Really? Did Esau steal Jacobs blessing? Both of those men were sinners.

Moreover, this text says specifically that it wasn't because of any good or evil they had done but so that the purpose of God in election might stand.

Please TS, just deal with what the text says rather than denying that it says what it says.

TS... Oh never mind, I'll just post it again:

Not a single thing in there about Esau being hated because of anything he did... in fact, just the opposite.

I know the story.... and that story has to be reconciled to the inspired explanation given by Paul in Romans 9. The meaning of Romans 9 is not negated by the OT. The OT is clarified by Romans 9.

True. But they must also accept the whole Word and not attempt to use parts of it to mute other parts that they don't like.

True.

God allows some to perish. We both have to accept that. If He willed He most certainly could cause every single person to believe. He didn't.

It isn't whether and perhaps not even why men perish that we disagree on. It is why some do not. Your belief holds that man does something to secure salvation for himself and God recognizes that merit. My system holds that God by His grace alone saves helpless, spiritually dead/blind sinners.

Good thing I haven't done what you are apparently suggesting I have.

That simply isn't what Romans 9 says. It is in fact exactly the opposite of what Romans 9 says.

I will make this really easy for you if your are in fact correct. Please show me the scripture that says God hated Esau only after He rejected His will.

That is the fate and the guilt of those who perish. There is no doubt whatsoever that Esau qualified... but that doesn't change what Romans 9 says or means.

True. That's why when the Bible says that God elects according to His own purpose those who will be saved and says that those who are not saved are responsible for themselves, I believe it.

Or perhaps you should just cool your jets and stop trying to deny that the Bible says what it says. You have attempted to limit the alternatives to either the text doesn't mean what it means or else there is a contradiction. You have ignored the third and more likely explanation- your understanding is flawed.

Both of these scriptures are infallible. Our ability to understand them is not.

Probably. But the only verifiable lie here is the accusation that we are spreading the "lie that God is full of hate". I haven't seen anyone say that God is "full of hate".

The scriptures obviously say that God has the capacity to hate. We just have to deal with it. We deal with it by accepting it on the faith that even if we don't understand it completely there is no contradiction. You deny the text.

Actually, I didn't say that... and you can stop putting words in my mouth.

I simply accept that Romans 9 means what it says. I didn't "say" anything.

Please show where the Bible says that God loved Esau until Esau hated Him. Romans 9 says that God chose Jacob before they were born.

 

Greetings

 

Calvinists "need" to twist the quote of Romans 9 as Paul quotes Malachi 1 -- such that God "hates Esau" before the infant was born.

As though we can IGNORE the exegesis of both Romans 9 and Malachi 1 (the text being quoted)in an "any-eisegesis-goes-for-Calvinism" style of quote.

In fact Malachi 1 does not say that Esau was wicked it says the EDOM (the nation of Esau) was a "wicked people" because it is the NATION of Esau and Jacob (Edom and Israel) that is actually being addressed - NT the infant sons of Rebekkah!!

]quote]
Malach 1
God's Love for Jacob
1 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob;
3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."
[/quote]

Here we see a definition of hate as “Love Less”

Luke 14:26

Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage

NOTE: The command is to husbands to love wives and children to love and honor parents as well as neighbors, strangers, enemies.

Love "more" vs "Love Less" [/QB][/QUOTE]

Mal 1:3 does not say "God hated Esau after his birth"

Mal 1:3 does not say "God hated Esau before he was born".

The text of Mal 1 deals with the nations of Israel vs Edom – Esau as vs 4 pointsout.

It is the NATIONS that are being addressed in the examples above under the names of their founding father.

 

Clearly God shows that His anger is against both Jacob and Esau – though He has judged Esau (Edom) now He is also displeased with Jacob (Israel) and will not listen to their worship. (In fact Israel is now a captive of Persia and will continue captivity under Greece and Rome – to be extinguished in 70Ad).

But if we go back to the “PERSONS” of Jacob and Esau – Esau received ALL the inheritance of Abraham and Isaac – Jacob got NONE!

In the following verses from this same chapter of Malachi 1 - God curses Israel the one “loved”.

Here we see the regard God had for Esau – through Esau’s descendants.


So in "hating" Esau - God refused to let Israel go to war with Edom.

But the story gets worse on God’s "loving Israel" as they go AROUND Edom - God unleashes poisonous serpents on ISRAEL NOT Edom!

The borders of Israel - STOPPED at Edom --

God refused to allow Israel to hate Edomites.

Yet often we find Calvinists wanting to justify “hate” by using Malachi 1 as an example of “hating the infant Esau”.

 

And yet, Obadiah - Chapter 1 is all about Esau/Edom:

Doesn't sound too great for them & why is that? Because before this verse it says for the way they treated Jacob (Israel).

 

True it shows Edom named as "Esau" and shows that the "wicked nation" or "Wicked territory"
is judged for their deeds (as Romans 2 points out between the wicked and the righteous in the "impartial" judgment of God)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

I can not speak for all, but I need no justifing to please. I just say...LOOK..there it is.

Others say..BUT...BUT...BUT...john 3...and and...LOVE..and...not hate...its..aaaw its ..love less...yeah that's it...and and and..its a nation...so you see..its not hate now...cuz its a nation...and...and ...and..did i say john 3:16? yeah..now thats a good verse...john 3:16. no...not hate..forget hate. I don't care what the Bible says...don't read that part. if you see hate..change it..like...hummm..like when it says hate your father...yeah..its like that...thats the ticket. not hate..NEVER

give me a break!!!

 

...like world...like all...like none...like whoever... </font>[/QUOTE]I'll tell you what webdog...i say that Did come to save...for He does love the world....the Bible says it...i believe it

I say that God said "Whosoever may come"
the Bible says it..i believe it

now....can you say God hates sinners?
the Bible says it....do you believe it...or do you change it?

 

As i said before...these only show that God can in deed HATE. It has taken many pages for you to say this one thing. The post was from a texasSky post that said..GOD IS LOVE....PLAIN AND SIMPLE. I said...he is more then just love. God can..and does hate.

that is when i made my list.

Now that you agree God can hate... lets look at more..

In the passages above...was it the sin itself or the people that sinned that was the wickedness that God hated?

before you answer that...i'll wait on the Book of rev. reply..and paslms 50