"Jacob I've Loved but Esau I've Hated"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Skandelon, Mar 9, 2004.

  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following is a quote from Adam Clarke's commentaries on Roman 9 where he soundly defeats the idea of individual and unconditional election being supported in this passage. I beg my Calvinistic brethern to wade through it with a teachable heart lest they continue to lead others astray from the clear teaching of the text.

     
  2. matt721

    matt721
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    historical context makes a big difference
     
  3. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will you take all that Mr. Clark wrote?

    I have his commentary from Genesis to Psalms and much of it is spiritualized and I just wonder if you are willing to take it all as written.

    Spurgeon recommended his commentary to his pastor's college students, but warned he was a little off the wall at the same time.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know everything that Clarke wrote. But at this point I cannot disagree, can you?
     
  5. BBNewton

    BBNewton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skan,

    18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Romans (9:18)

    When Paul uses the word "whom", is he refering to a group or an individual?
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whom is plural. So I will say a group.
     
  7. BBNewton

    BBNewton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the word in the greek plural?
     
  8. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Whom" is not plural. The difference between "who" and "whom" is case, not number.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since Paul didn't speak English, he didn't say "whom". [​IMG] However, in the written Greek, the context is plural, similar to the word "humankind" being plural, though taking the grammatical rules of singularity.
     
  10. BBNewton

    BBNewton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the verse reads like this:

    So then He has mercy on whom (singular) He desires, and He hardens whom (singular) He desires.

    ara oun on qelei eleei, on de qelei sklhrunei.

    If this is true, then isn't your argument false?
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe God at that time had hardened certain individuals and had mercy on others. It just so happens that those he hardened were Jews and those he was showing mercy were Gentiles. That is the issue Paul is addressing.

    I know it is difficult to see a passage from a different perspective when you have become so accustom to reading it from your own perspective so lets take a different situation and maybe that will help:

    Pretend with me that we live before the Civil War and we are all slave owners. We have been taught wrongly that blacks are not real people, just property. We therefore have concluded that God has no place for them in His plan or in heaven. In our minds they are no different than animals. (Of couse this thinking today is abhorent and rightly so but many held to this belief in that day so go along with me.)

    Now, you, Newton, are a respect pastor in the community and all of your pastor friends and mentors all believe as you do that blacks are not apart of God's covenant. In fact, you think they are not worthy of God's attention whatsoever, just as everyone else does around you. It has been this way for years.

    One day, God blinds you while walking down the road (like He did Paul) or speaks to you in a vivid dream (like He did Peter) and tells you that your views on blacks are wrong and that God loves them and wants them to be a part of His covenant just like whites. At first your flesh object saying, "What not those dirty slaves, surely not, you have chosen us Lord." But God convinces you that his love for them is as real as his love for you.

    Then God calls you to preach to blacks and while your doing that you'll have to convince the whites that your ministry is really from God. Tuff job. Now you can relate to Paul's dilema.

    You become know as the "preacher to the blacks" and you are not very popular at all. In fact, the whites argue that black aren't deserving of entrance into God's coventant and they beat you and even throw you in prison many times. But you argue, "God can show mercy on whom ever he wants!" And when you write to the black churches that you started you say things like, "I thank God that He has chosen you."

    Lets take this even one step further. What if God also revealed to you that He was going to blind the eyes of the white people so that for a time they would continue to reject your teachings. God does this to make a path for the blacks to come into the church. You write, "God can show mercy to whom he desires and he can harden whom he desires. Then one of you white people will say to me, 'Then why does God still blame us for who can resist his will to harden us?' Who are you oh man to talk back to God. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of white clay some of you for noble purposes and some for common use?

    Do you see that the objections Paul is anticipating is not from a non-elect reprobate, they are the rejections of a hardened Jew. He is debating Jews, not Arminians. I know this is just an analogy but maybe it will help you see the biblical perspective.
     
  12. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Skandelon said:

    Reminds me of one who told a fellow believer:

    You're lying, brother.

    (Call the Calvinistics brethren, and then tell them they are deceivers).
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Clarke's conclusion I would not disagree.

    He does not deny the elect from among the Gentile nations. Though I do not know this is what you are doing, the only other guy I ever met believing as you, besides Yelsew2 believed only the Jews were the elect and all others must make a free choice to become children of God.

    I disagree with that. And according to my understanding I believe Adam Clarke did also. One does not become 'elect' after the fact except in politics and the idea of voting is not found in scripture. The elect are that from before the foundation of the world.

    They are justified in eternity in Christ--the eternal decree of God to send forth into the world his only begotten Son, from eternity to reconcile man to God. They are justified in time because at the fulness of time Jesus completed this purpose and lay down his life for the sheep and by the power of holiness was resurrected from the grave---for our justification; also, they were justified in time by repentance and belief and by the witness of the Holy Spirit sealing them as well as the fruits of that Spirit. But they did not become the elect because of their repentance, their belief, nor their fruits. To make them elect because of any one of these pronounces an eternal salvation by works and thereby grace is no more grace. To make them elect because God looked down into time and foresaw the act of belief in them would declare their eternal justification because of their belief, again, rendering this an eternal reward. This last view also makes you wonder and ask many many questions.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Elect" deals with the corporate body, the confusion comes in the fact that God is making a non-elect people his people.

    Sometime biblical authors refer to Jewish people as "elect" because that is how they were refered to being of God's elect nation.

    The problem you are having is that you are attempting to apply election to individuals instead of to groups. Israel was elect, but not every individual in Israel was of the seed linage of Christ. Paul shows that in the first part of Romans 9. His reference to Jacob and Esau is often applied as being a proof text for individual election but as Clarke clearly explains that cannot be the case.
     
  15. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother,
    Are you trying to prove the chicken came before the egg?

    How do you get a corporation without individuals?

    How can Peter speak of the elect church as a corporation, but not made up of elect individuals? After all, the church is certainly not the building, nor will the 'church' be empty what ever else it may be found to be. So, somehow, your argument seems to make the cart pull the horse.

    Kinda like that old farmer with a huge load of feed on his wagon. he only had one horse, when they came to a steep hill the horse had so difficult a time the farmer resolved to assist him. He reached back on the pile of feed and got a bag and put it on his lap and yelled giddup to the horse.
     

Share This Page

Loading...