Esau I HATED!!!!!

Hello Johnv.

Is grace required for salvation?
Yes? Then He did not love Esau.
No? Then it is by grace goes out the window.

As it is written: Jacob I loved Esau I hated.

That does not give you authority to change scripture does it? What of the translators, all wrong?

This is not the first time you have accused me of believing scripture.

I do don't I. You seem to bring the worse out in me for some reason. I will try to do better I am sorry.

I am. I asked if the Dutch translators have the same as the English to see if it is only the English that have a problem with hate. A cute move and why do you not answer it? It might be relevant if they have translated as you claim it should have been.

What concern is that of mine we are discussing Romans 9?

That is wrong isn't it you said He did not bless him as He blessed Jacob?

If he, Esaudom, builds up what I knock down I will knock it down again sounds like hate not love. Might be He did this to them in love? It does not matter what they or he did if He loved them He would not destroy in love that makes love fail and love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8. You have a failure of love.

I have no qualifications having retired from school at 15.
I have your word and I have the bible which would you choose in my position? How do I tell my people that what they read is wrong and that word hate should have been love? Why do you hold to it? Your protest that you are not trying to support your belief that you have elected yourself falls on deaf ears.

Jacob was a sinner Esau was a sinner less? None of us can claim a righteousness of our own and none of us are better than another. We are sinners.

 

You run counter to scripture you should read up on the Corinthinian Church. He does not do as you say but He acts as He wills without rules.

Never touch the stuff man as I said I am into Koine English not ye olde worlde English
Why come down on the KJV? My brothers and sisters love the sheer beauty of the translation and the language and so do I but nevertheless I'd rather hear 'where you going' over and above 'withersoever thou goest'. I use the NIV. Is it 'very NIVish of me?

That God loves some and hates others is scripture. What of the angels that He turned His back on? In love of course. Deserve it did they? So do we.

What the word carries or does not carry I am not authorised to change the meaning of because you said so. As far as I'm concerned if God cannot handle the word aright then we are all in the pappekak are we not?

White Dutch-Indonesian? We have just spent two weeks among your compatriots in the South of France. We have a lot in common and we can drink as much as each other without falling over.

It borders the Twilight Zone that's all I know about the place.

Do me a favour I said I wasn't stupid. You see there is common sense among the unlearned and we need nothing but God's provision of His word in our own language. It's called trust. You are asking me to trust you.

Well if you can make hate mean love then love becomes meaningless.

Soft shoe shuffle then.

ISA 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
And just to show that I do not look down on you I will include the next verse for me. ISA 5:22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks...

Some love.

So clever with one word so dark with another?

I thought you weren't in it for election.

Rev 19:15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. Some love.

Not so. Jacob I loved Esau I hated is plain and simple.

john.

 

No and he never said anything of the kind to Rebecca as the "details" in both Malachi 1 and Romans 9 point out.

See "those details" of scripture keep coming back.

Don't you find that amazing?

In Christ,

Bob

 

You have this habit of putting words in other peoples mouths rather than just dealing directly, honestly with the text and the opinions of others.

Paul wrote that God hated Esau...
</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed - I pointed out "the details" of WHERE that occurs (centuries AFTER Esau died) and showed the "details" of EDOM being called "ESAU" repeatedly in scripture.

I SHOWED that even though Calvinists love to "twist" that context around so that this is a statement by God to Rebecca about her infant son Esau -- the DETAILS do not ALLOW for such a blind twisting of the text.

But as already pointed out -- those "details" are invconvenient to the "story" that Calvinism loves to tell.

Oh well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am amazed at how people on this thread keep taking a word and turning it to mean what they want it to. Bob continues to push the "love less" angle and that Romans 9 is a reference to nations. The problem here is that all the people who believe that are caught in their own trap. So for the sake of argument let's agree that Bob is correct when he says God does not hate, and that Romans 9 is speaking about nations and not individuals.


The first problem is that there is an assumption that God does not hate, and this assumption is based on human emotion and understanding of the nature of God. As such we do not want to believe in a God who is capable of hate and choosing individuals for no other reason than His own pleasure. We can't fathom this for we only can relate to choosing something or someone because of their qualities. We want the best and only the best, so naturally you conclude God would want the same thing.

The problem is we are not God, and we cannot and never will be able to understand His ways. So what if it does mean "love less" God still condemns that nation, they are not chosen. So he loved them less enough to humiliate them by serving the people who should have been serving them. If I were in that position I would naturally feel as if I was slighted and hated by God. Love less, hate really no difference in the light of the situation.


Second, even if Romans 9 is talking about nations you still have to deal with the fact that one nation was chosen by God and the other was not, and what are nations made up of? INDIVIDUALS. The text does not say God loved the nation that would come from Jacob, and hated the nation that would come from Esau. It names particular people. Individuals. It also states that this was done "in order that God's election may stand." It may sound harsh and I can understand how that sounds mean, but it is not, for their was a reason for God doing this, and being that it is from God it can only be good.

I do not understand how you can reconcile in your mind that it is not okay to choose one INDIVIDUAL over another, but it is okay to choose a whole nation of INDIVIDUALS over another. Answer this question... Did the nation of Edom go to heaven?

Your arguments do not stand as they are, and to all those that believe that way are deceived by their own arguments.

 

That is a bit unfortunate for Calvinists given that Paul has so many Arminian points raised in scripture.

Hmm "HATE your Parents" -- Luke 7.

(Is that just another "detail" to ignore when trying to twist Romans 9 and its use of the term in the same way??)

#1. God did not say to Rebecca "I hate Esau" so Calvinists "make that up".

#2. God did not tell Rebecca "Esau is not God's child" so Calvinists "make that up" (as you have done above.

#3. God spoke to Rebecca ONLY about ministry and leadership. ROLES that God has ALWAYS held the right to CHOOSE for his people. So you "IGNORE that" limit to the scope in God's conversation with Rebecca.

#4. EVEN some of your own CALVINIST posters have rejected the idea of God hating infants!

But alas! All these "inconvenient details" are just "more facts to be ignored" in the "all for Calvinism" mantra.

So do you mean "He cared to HATE Esau" or do you mean "you can CARE FOR and HATE the same person at the same time"?

(This should be good)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Esau had more people, ALL the inheritance from both Abraham AND Isaac and Jacob got only what he could earn starting from scratch!

Jacob ends his life telling Pharaoh that his years have been few and his life miserable.

Jacob is terrified at the strength of Esau when they meet in mid-life.

If the life of the PERSONS are contrasted - Jacob had no "cake walk".

God CHOSE Jacob for leadership NOT for a more prosperous inheritance or easier life.

AS the Jews say in the story "Fiddler on the Roof" -- God please let someone else be "Special" for a while.

Destroy your straw men... dodge.... attempt to explain away the text all you want.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No and he never said anything of the kind to Rebecca as the "details" in both Malachi 1 and Romans 9 point out.

See "those details" of scripture keep coming back.

Don't you find that amazing?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Back again for a moment.

Bob, Why the evasion... it almost appears as obfuscation.

The detail that keeps coming back is that Paul wrote under inspiration that God hated Esau. Previously, you said that this meant He "loved him less". Now you are saying what? Did Paul really mean that God "loved" Esau when he wrote that He hated him?

I haven't mentioned God saying anything to Rebecca. I just keep reading the text of Romans 9 and it keeps NOT SAYING what you claim is says.

You insist on making this hard in an effort to obscure the fact that this scripture completely contradicts what you believe.
-It establishes directly and irrefutably that God can choose one person over another without apology or guilt.
-It establishes that this choice does not have to be because of anything they have done but purely for His divine purposes.
-It establishes that God has the sovereign right to make one man His child without any incumbent duty to offer the same opportunity to his brother.

Bob, You really aren't debating us here. You are debating God. He said through Paul that He chose Jacob and hated Esau. I didn't say it. None of the other calvinists here said it. Calvin didn't say it.... God did.

If you want to say it means God loved Esau less, I'm OK with that.

But you can't say that it means nothing related to the meaning of the word "hate". And you have to recognize that God's election of Jacob over Esau was before they had done any good or evil.

 

Where? I certainly haven't. Or is this just another case of you setting up a straw man?

 

Neither. I just accept the FACTS.

Scripture records blessings that came upon Esau. Scripture says that God hated Esau. I am satisfied that both of these statements are true.

 

Just read the text... and my posts while you are at it. It would be an interpretation to say that God hated the infant/unborn Esau. Context seems to suggest it but I won't argue it.

I have been careful to say that God "chose" Jacob over Esau before they had done any good or evil.

 

Salvation requires grace. Not all grace is salvific in nature. Nevertheless, the issue of grace and withholding of love are two different issues here.

That scripture does not say that God refrained from loving Esau.

It is you who changes scripture by infusing the notion that God does not love all. No translation says that God refrained fromloving Esasu. Neither does any translation say that God does not love all.

The Dutch reads "nochtans heb Ik Jakob liefgehad. En Ezau heb Ik gehaat". Literally translated "I had affection for Jacob, and I had loathing for Esau". It's not inconsistent with the Hebrew sane. If this were to imply withholding of love, the Dutch bible wouls say "houen niet van".

I have not once discussed Roman 9. I have stuck strictly to Malachai.

That's correct. He didn't. But we're not talking about God's blessings. We're talking about God refraining from loving Esau. Scripture does not say that this is what God did.

So, when God withholds grace from us because of our actions, we're not loved? That's not scriptural.

Your Bible doesn't say that God refrained from loving Esau.

None of that has to do with the plain and clear fact that scripture does not say that God refrained fromloving Esau. It says he refrained from blessing Esau. Big difference.

 

Bob you defeat your self by believing what you do. Your arguments make no sense. Read my post on page 7.

 

Esau had more people, ALL the inheritance from both Abraham AND Isaac and Jacob got only what he could earn starting from scratch!

Jacob ends his life telling Pharaoh that his years have been few and his life miserable.

Jacob is terrified at the strength of Esau when they meet in mid-life.

If the life of the PERSONS are contrasted - Jacob had no "cake walk".

God CHOSE Jacob for leadership NOT for a more prosperous inheritance or easier life.

AS the Jews say in the story "Fiddler on the Roof" -- God please let someone else be "Special" for a while.

Destroy your straw men... dodge.... attempt to explain away the text all you want.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Jacob during his own life was promised the blessing of becoming a great nation. He possibly even knew when he blessed his own sons that the blessing he gave to Judah was messianic.

God blessed Jacob by making him the line of promise. We do not see scripture saying the God of Abraham, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, do we? No. He was the God of Jacob the chosen patriarch.

 

I know of no version of the bible that reads " Jacob I bless and Esau I refrain from blessing"

 

If God condems people because he loves them less then that is just messed up on your part. You think us "Calvinists" have a warped view of love, take a step back and look at yours. He condemns the nation of Edom because he loved them but not as much as Jacob?

Sounds wonderful..."I love you Esau, but not that much, therefore I will give you power but the promise is going to come from Jacobs line and you cannot take part in it. Sorry."

 

It is amazing how pride can allow people to think they have any control in their salvation. We as a people cannot let go, we have to do everything on our own, "No don't help me I can do it myself." Then when they find out they can't they are to embarrased to admit they are wrong.

 

Who has ever claimed this?

It is what is at the heart of this thread. If you do not believe God chooses people for His purposes, and that He brings one to Him you have to believe man is capable of doing it himself.