Esau I HATED!!!!!

Hey Johnv

Yes i have heard you say this before. What I'm asking you to do...is write out what this means in the context.

in other words...based on your meaning...write the verse using the word "sane" and change all other words to fit this meaning....so that all can understand your full meaning of the true context that we are missing in the English..as you have stated.

Still another way to ask ....

if love means sane...and hate means (?)....
then the passage would read this way......(blah blah blah)

and also...

Now that we have the meaning from you.....tell us how it now changes the context of the passage to the real meaning as we should read it.


In Christ...James

 

The Semitic usage of sane is "to love less". In the Hebrew, God is telling the reader that he loved Jacob sufficiently to warrant bestowing the grace promised in the birthright originally granted Esau, but does not love Esau enough to warrant Esau keeping his birthright. This is due to Esau choosing to separate himself from God by wilfully giving up his birthright to his brother Jacob. God gave Esau a gift, and Esau turned it down. Meanwhile, Jacob, a schemer and conniver though he was, saw value in what God was promising.

Many use this verse to make the claim that God does not love sinners. Yet, if that were true via this verse, then God must also then withhold his love from Jacob, because Jacob is guilty of the sin of deception in the manner in which he gained Esau's birthright. Additionally, when you look at Jacob's life as a whole, it becomes pretty clear that he's not exactly the poster boy for righteous living, in some ways being less righteous than his brother. No, the context of the verse is grace, and whom God gives grace to (in Jacob's and Esau's case, Jacob saw the value of God's gifts, while Esau did not). Even today, God gives us spiritual gifts out of his grace, and when we do not utilize those gifts, he withdraws them from us. When this happens (and it's probably happenned to everyone in one way or another), it does not mean that God no longer loves us.

 

John, In spite of your degree, I don't think you claim to be an inspired interpretor of scripture.

However, Paul was.

What does the Greek word used by Paul in Romans 9 mean? Strong's says it means "hate". Do you have a different understanding of the word?

 

Many use this verse to make the claim that God does not love sinners. Yet, if that were true via this verse, then God must also then withhold his love from Jacob, because Jacob is guilty of the sin of deception in the manner in which he gained Esau's birthright. Additionally, when you look at Jacob's life as a whole, it becomes pretty clear that he's not exactly the poster boy for righteous living, in some ways being less righteous than his brother. No, the context of the verse is grace, and whom God gives grace to (in Jacob's and Esau's case, Jacob saw the value of God's gifts, while Esau did not). Even today, God gives us spiritual gifts out of his grace, and when we do not utilize those gifts, he withdraws them from us. When this happens (and it's probably happenned to everyone in one way or another), it does not mean that God no longer loves us. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv,

Thanks for your reply. there are many things i agree with on your post the main thing is..you did not change the meaning of the context. This is really not about LOVE and HATE...but the debate often can not get past this point. Now you did sofen it more then some would say it. Yet the context is GRACE..and Gods will to show grace to he wants.

Or...Gods election. Its right there in the passage. the passage says why God choose the younger...to PROVE ELECTION. Its also right in the passage he choose before both were born...TO PROVE election was not something the boys did....good or bad.

As you stated..both nations were wicked...yet God in His LOVE choose one to bless over the other.

that is why one part of your point will not hold up. The boys did nothing. God choose

You will need to deal with one thing, If you feel one must go back to the OT mal to get the full meaning...not sure that you do...but many do. Then you will see a word at the end of verse 4 that hurts some of your view. Now let me say right now..i do not think a person needs to read romans in light of Mal. the point stands by itself. Yet ...if you are one that hold to this...give me your thoughts on this one word.

Anyway back to romans 9. When Paul says we should not look at this as God being unfair...would you agree that the ground level of the meaning should look unfair to some..for Paul to make that point? So the passage seems to say that God picked one for love.... and the other...no love? less love? Bottom line..God before the boys did any good...or before they did any bad...GOD chose to prove election...right?


In Christ...James

 

Hint: Neither Paul nor Christ ever calls the saints "the wicked".

Already explained "repeatedly" and "exhaustively" it is in the HISTORY of those nations that Malachi 1 POINTS to the choices made by the "wicked nation" of Edom.

The SAME impartial plan of the "Blessings and the curses" that Moses gives to ISRAEL - is applied to EDOM.

They are currsed for choosing to rebel against God.

How easy can this be??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jarthur001, my posts never addressed the election issue. In fact, I tend to shy away from the whole "predestination vs free-will" topic as a rule. So please do not take my comments about Esau's/Jacob's choices and God's grace thereby as any support or refutation of one view or another on the election tableau.

My sole reason for posting was to address the Hebrew context of the word sane, and to demonstrate that it does not carry a meaning of "to withhold love". I think I've successfully addressed that point. I'll let others discuss the election issue.

 

Already explained "repeatedly" and "exhaustively" it is in the HISTORY of those nations that Malachi 1 POINTS to the choices made by the "wicked nation" of Edom.

The SAME impartial plan of the "Blessings and the curses" that Moses gives to ISRAEL - is applied to EDOM.

They are currsed for choosing to rebel against God.

How easy can this be??

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that the context of Romans 9 demands that it is talking about those two men. It mentions their mother, conception, and birth. It specifically states that God's choice was not because of any good or evil they had done.

How easy can this be?

 

Hello Johnv.

You have been led astray. If there was any sense to say that Esau was loved then at least one English translation would have Esau I loved. Your learning is false. Yoiur statement changes doctrine. I accept those that were used in my service to bring me the voice of Christ I don't trust you.

In Hebrew and Koine Greek?

Goodness me no but you must be desperate. Although I am often referred to as mad I am not stupid.
As it is written: Jacob I loved Esau I hated.
As it is written: Jacob I loved Esau I loved but not as much but the not as much is a failure of love. Esau did not go to Hell because he was loved less than His brother but because God says He chose Esau to hate.l

I very glad it will save you looking it up. I suppose you translated it roses.
What's in the Dutch bibles? Is it Jacob I loved Esau I loved or As it is written: Jacob I loved Esau I hated.. 'As it is written' is a warning.

If He does not give grace to Esau it is because He chose not to love Esau.

Hardly a presumption might be you are confusing languages.

You Arminians will say anything to get out of accepting the As it is written: Jacob I loved Esau I hated.. It is a clear example of having a belief that is contrary to scripture and having to go tap dancing to explain it away no?

john.

 

On the contrary. The concept that God loves all (though he does not give grace to all, and does not save all) is consistent with scriptural doctrine. However, teaching that God does not love all is inconsistent with scriptural doctrine.

Study of Masoric Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek were required courses in the degree program. Do you have degree and/or college level study in these languages?

Yet you ignore the Hebrew meaning and context, in favor of your personal understanding of the English.

This is the part in your posts where you get personally insulting. Typical.

Stick to the point: What's in the Hebrew source text? The Hebrew source text does not have any implication that God is withholding love from Esau.

Oh, so the translation supercedes the source texts? Very KJVOish of you.

Scripture does not say that.

The fact that sane does not carry a definition of withholding love is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.

I'm Dutch-Indonesian. I've never been to Arminia. I fail to see what the election issue has to do with the definition of sane.

The issue of predestination vs free will has to do with God imparting salvation upon some while withholding it from others. It has nothing to do with God loving some and not others.

I've never one tap danced. I've been very clear. Sane does not imply the withholding of love. Period. Additionally, John 3:16 is concise that God loved the world, not just some of the world. Hence, it's scripturally wrong to say that God does not love some people. THose who say that GOd withhold his love from certain people (such as Esau) are scripturally in error. Plain and simple.

 

Pointing out that the "favored snippet text" in Romans 9 about hate has been dealt with exhaustively and INCLUDING the command for the saints to HATE PARENTS in Luke.

Thus showing that the context for "hate" in Malachi 1 (as quoted in Romans 9) IS IMPORTANT.

Hint for Calvinists: The NATIONAL HISTORY of the choices made by the wicked nation of Edom IS APPLICABLE as is the "blessing and the curses" formula given to Israel regarding rebellion against God.

As hard as that Bible truth is for some Calvinists.

Funny - I don't see that exchange in the list above.

RAther I see "dodging the details" in Romans 9 by Calvinists as the subject of "hate" is explored in the NT.

I see "dodging the details" in Malachi 1 by Calvinists as the subject of the HISTORY of Edom and Israel is reviewed and the CHOICES made by the "wicked territory" are a matter of "history" at the time of Malachi 1. The principle of the "Blessings and the curses" applied justly and impartially (as Romans 2 points out) would "predict" the distribution for blessings vs curses EVEN in Malachi 1. (As simple as that is "to get")

As pointed out -- rather than finding ways to spin hate "in to the Gospel" what about the Gospel foundation of "love"?

Particularly when you claim to be holding on to both the idea that God chooses to "love all" at the same time you seem to want to promote "arbitrary hatred of the wicked" where fallen-unregenerate saints are not "the wicked" (A somewhat confused line of reasoning if you ask me).

 

This is what I meant by "in detail" and "exhaustively" -- I have already SHOWN IN Romans 9 that we have BOTH the reference to NATIONS and to INDIVIDUALs in that chapter. So the quote of Malachi 1 about NATIONS is STILL applicable and exegesis is STILL the only way to interpret this --

Ignoring the "details" just is not an option.

See?

As already stated "repeatedly" -- this is the section dealing with leadership between the two infants - this is NOT where God says He hates someone!

Calvinists seem to love to obfuscate and mix that point AS IF the text HAD done what they NEEDED which is to have God say to Rebekkah "Jacob have I loved and Esau have a I hated" -- that is the VERY THING the text DOES NOT say for God's dealing with the INDIVIDUALS at the time He speaks to Rebekkah.

These "inconvenient facts" seem to get lost in the Calvinist enthusiasm to "tell a good story".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is what I meant by "in detail" and "exhaustively" -- I have already SHOWN IN Romans 9 that we have BOTH the reference to NATIONS and to INDIVIDUALs in that chapter.</font>[/QUOTE] In the chapter- but not in the immediate context of the disputed phrase. That portion of the passage in context is dealing with those two individuals. It is manifest by the reference to specific things about them as individuals and not as nations.

Not if you allow the words to mean what they mean in their context.

I most certainly do.

BTW, speaking of ignoring details:

You previously said:

To which I responded:

Are you willing to answer?

As already stated "repeatedly" -- this is the section dealing with leadership between the two infants - this is NOT where God says He hates someone!</font>[/QUOTE] No. It specifically denies that it is dealing with leadership or anything else they did:

I know it would be real convenient for you if verse 11 would just go away... but it won't. They weren't born when God chose Jacob. They hadn't led anyone nor done any "good or evil" when God called the younger son to receive His promise by grace.

Paul is dealing with the individuals at the time he wrote Romans 9. The context proves it and YOU are the one attempting obfuscate by insisting that the context is provided by Malachi 1 rather than the surrounding words.

No need to "tell" a story. All you have to do is read what Paul wrote in the context in which he wrote it.

I am even ready to allow your definition of hate so that we can move on to the FACT that God chose Jacob over Esau. He made him a patriarch. Esau received blessings in life but the final result was destruction...

That is exactly what we say about salvation. God chooses the elect to be saved according to His divine purpose. While God demonstrates general grace to all men, the unregenerate will continue in sin to destruction in the end.

 

Bob said --
Already explained "repeatedly" and "exhaustively" it is in the HISTORY of those nations that Malachi 1 POINTS to the choices made by the "wicked nation" of Edom.
*****************

And as it turns out in this case - I "want to read the Bible".

This is why I keep bringing up all those "inconvenient details" in Malachi 1 and Romans 9.

I understand why the "inconvenient details" would be something to "avoid at all costs" if one were actually comitted to "Calvinism-at-all-costs" -- I am just surprised when you admit to it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here are the "inconvenient details" of Malach 1 "again".

(Clearly a list of "details" for Calvinists to "ignore")

]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”.

 

Since we are on the topic of details in Romans 9 and Malachi 1 for Calvinists to diligently avoid

Here is the section of Romans 9 where BOTH NATIONS and INDIVIDUALs are addressed by Paul.

(Calvinist arguments seem to hope that Paul will soon learn in a minute that God does not actually care for those that are not coming to Christ and neither should he ).

By contrast we see Paul with genuine concern for the lost, the unbelieving, the “wicked” EVEN among God’s CHOSEN people! Why? – Because Paul has been given “The mind of Christ” (1Cor 2) and “walks as Christ walked” (1John 2) with the result that he LOVES as Christ loved “even his enemies” thus showing himself to be a child of the Father (Matt 5) for “God IS LOVE” 1John 4.

It is the heart of God that calls out to all “COME unto ME ALL who are weary “!! It is God that is “NOT willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance” 2Peter 3. It is God that gives his people the “Ministry of reconciliation begging the lost to be reconciled to God” 2Cor 5.

This is not some “fluke” or some “bad trait” of Paul that he will “soon get over” as he learns just how fickle and arbitrary, partial and “unloving” God “really is”!!

In vs 4 and 5 we see the clear distinct explicit and obvious reference to the literal NATION of Israel and their literal national history.

(Here Calvinism seems to hope that Paul will soon learn that God never actually does all that work for those He cares nothing for. Paul will need to pipe down on this point since it appears that God's sovereignly chosen "Holy Nation" and "Royal priesthood" idea did not work)

By contrast the Word of God shows Paul being consistent on this point about the NATION of Israel from Romans 3 to this very point.

KEY POINT: THE ONE TRUE Nation Church and the FOREVER promises

To Israel is given the Word of God – The Bible, Scripture.
Isaiah 59 tells us that they were given FOREVER promises of God’s teaching Word and His Holy Spirit.

What a fantastic thought that God would entrust to sinful, faulty man - "the ORACLES of GOD"!! He tells us He sovereignly ordained the Jewish church (the ONE TRUE Church established at Sinai) to perpetuate the teaching of His Word. He did this with FOREVER promises (just as in the case of the New Testament Church) - see
Isaiah 59 for an example of His forever Covenant with this ONE TRUE Hebrew church. A covenant about His Spirit and His Infallible Word.

That forever covenant was intended to setup the Hebrew church as a teaching NATION church - an evangelizing church (A royal priesthood and holy nation) - the same charter given the church of the New Testament 1 Pet 2:5, 9-10.

Notice that Paul considers the LITERAL earthly institution of the Hebrew nation church to be LITERALLY given the ORACLES OF GOD - even though they have fallen. No literal church today can claim exemption from the possibility of falling.

Paul BUILDS on his Chapter 2 thesis that contrasts those that REPENT and go to heaven with those that are merely "hearers of the law". His contrast of those that are judged in the future as SHOWING that the Law is written on their heart - vs those that rebel against God.

Paul seems to address the issue of whether or not “God is stuck with Israel” even if they fail – He must continue to use them or declare His promises a failure. OR is there another way?

In his argument he points out that “some did not believe” – he himself is a “believing Jew” as he points out in Phil 3. And so Paul points out that God SAVES at the “individual level” even though the MISSION of evangelism was given at the NATIONAL level.

(Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - Since Calvinist presume that there are no changes - God's sovereign predestined will is being unfolded in history right on schedule. No failures, [no changes to the arbitrary selection process of election. )

By this statement above - that would mean that spiritual Jews are the only ones God was EVER concerned about from the Start. By that logic then (since this still continues to be the case after the cross) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! The SAME principle would just CONTINUE!

Given the Calvinist model - this is simply THE system as given by God - "working as designed" so "no change needed" at the cross. (Unless of course Calvinists want to argue that God was designing the failure of his "Chosen" even though they are the "children of the promise" from day one)!!

So how does the Arminian view fare by comparison in this case? Very well indeed since The Arminian view anticipates/allows "changes" based on the failure of God's own elect/chosen/established church dues to free will. Adam and Eve - failed, and there was "a change" to what God had sovereignly started.

Then Israel (the Hebrew nation church sovereignly started by God) "failed" and there was "another change" whereby the NATION of Israel no longer has the MISSION of evangelism. That falls to the persecuted church of God under the NT model rather than the NATION church of God in the OT model. Yet it is the "faithful" - those that choose belief in God and faith in His promises that remain in all the systems.

(Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Calvinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.)

Good example of God knowing the future in terms of leadership. Just as we see in 1Cor 12 where GIFTS are given selectively and not uniformly. God does NOT claim impartiality in distributing leadership roles or ministry or gifts but DOES claim impartiality when it comes to salvation (Romans 2:10-11)

So this case of God selecting Jacob for a “leadership role” says “nothing” about hating the infant Esau or about God being “partial” when it comes to salvation –(as some Calvinists would have the text “reworked”). Indeed it is not surprising to find Calvinist summarizing a bent view of Romans 9 as “God hated Esau before he was born”.

By contrast this IS an example of God’s choice determining the birthright – rather than man’s “custom”. The birthright could only be given to ONE – it is not an “impartial gift to ALL”. So while in Romans 2:11 we see that I SALVATION God is “impartial” yet in the birthright it is HIS choice of one OVER the other (in spite of culture and tradition that would say the older must be selected OVER the younger) is the rule that stands.

Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate and NOT the Rom 2:11-13 issue of salvation.

The mother is told which Son will be dominant in terms of the birthright - which one will have the blessing. (In the end of course – Esau inherits EVERTYHING Isaac has)

</font>[/QUOTE]This is the section where Calvinists "had hoped" to read "BEfore the infants were Born God said to Rebekkah - Jacob have a loved and Esau have I hated".

Sorry fellas - Not there!

In Christ,

Bob

 

And finally - we have the favored section where although the context is NO LONGER one of "God speaking to Rebecca" -- we DO find the phrase about Edom and Israel using the terms "Jacob and Esau". The text that Calvinists love to INSERT BACK into the earlier section Where God IS speaking to Rebecca!

What then is the hate quoted in Mal 1?? Are we allowed to “look at the text” and exegete it for its meaning? Yes!

Lets ask some basic questions – and “see the details” in the text of scripture.

Is there a parallel between the “Two” classes in Romans 2 (given as context for Romans 9) and the two individuals Jacob and Esau? (Yes).

What about the SAME kind of parallel between the two classes in Romans 2 (given as context for Romans 9) and the two NATIONS represented by Jacob and Esau (as God points out in Mal 1)?? – Yes there is an exact parallel even at the national level.

In the text is God referring to the national history of two nations or to the two infants “before they were born” as many Calvinists would have us believe?

As Christ said "HATE your parents, brothers, sisters and members of your own household - and your own life"...

By comparison to the "LOVE" that you have for Christ.

The hate He speaks of is not the HATE of the one who "hates his brother and is guilty enough to go into hell fire".

It is not the 'hate' that is counter to "LOVE your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

So also in the case of the quote of Malachi 1 that is found in Rom 9:13 –

Malachi 1 is a comment made AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter). There we find Edom (descendants of Esau) called a “wicked nation” and JUST as the “Blessings and Curses” pronounced ON ISRAEL were true impartial “results” of obedience vs rebellion SO in this case – Edom chooses wickedness and calls down upon itself the curses – even from a Loving God.

The “reason:” Israel doubts God’s statement about “loving Jacob vs Esau” is that it is JACOB that is currently held captive by the Persians at the time this statement is made through Malachi. In fact Israel REMAINS subjugated not only during the time of Persia BUT ALSO during the time of Greece and Rome – which means that “yes” EVEN in Paul’s day in the time of Romans 9 – Israel is STILL held captive by the Romans!!


“Hate” in this case refers to the “wicked nation” that chooses rebellion and invites that list of Curses. It is “hate” as “compared to something”. In the same way SAINTS are told to “HATE” their own families and their own lives as compared to their LOVE for God.

This is said at the same time that we see in Mark 7 – Christ UPHOLDING the commandment saying that we MUST honor our parents (upheld EVEN in Eph 6:1-3 believe it or not)

In fact Christ has just affirmed the Lev 19:18 law of Moses that we must LOVE our neighbor prior to making this statement about hating our family and our own life.

So clearly this command to “hate” is “by comparison to something” rather than the genuine hatred of Matt 5

Notice that not ONLY is genuine hatred forbidden – but even “anger” to be “angry with your brother”.

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote.

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

The problem is that Calvinists latch on to something that appears to be useful to the teachings of Calvinism and then cling to a bad theology "no matter what" as they find the Bible does not support such a rendering (rending) of the text.

Indeed – what “hate” is God teaching us here given that we must “LOVE our neighbor as ourselves” and we must “Honor parents”?? Calvinists would have us simply turn a blind eye to this NT definition and cling to the “Calvinist hope” that God really “hated” the infant Esau! And so as already noted some models of Calvinism cling to bad theology "no matter what" they find in the Bible.

=================================================================

God sees the World of lost and doomed mankind and “So LOVES” that World that He “gives His Son” (creating the Gospel). This is not the will of man – but the “mercy and compassion” of God that causes the Gospel to exists. All can agree to that fact.

The Gospel – the very existence of our salvation – “depends on God who HAS MERCY”. The text never says “upon God who does NOT have Mercy at times”.

And as Paul “begins” the letter to the Romans in chapter 2 – he points out that God does this “without partiality” towards ONE instead of ANOTHER. (the “very thing” that Calvinists would accuse God of doing).

So it “depends on God who HAS mercy” indeed who “is NOT willing that ANY should Perish” and fortunately God “is not partial” – but rather – is just and fair in salvation towards ALL.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Bob, I am a little short on time so I will leave the rest to others for now and come back to address your error riddled post if no one else takes it up.

For now, I will deal only with this particular falsehood.

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... and even though we like to claim him, Paul never publicly called himself a calvinist. "Hated", "loved less", "didn't choose"... whatever you want to say the word means, it is obvious that Jacob was chosen over Esau to be God's child and patriarch. This choice according the text, not calvinists, was made before they were born.

I don't think I have said that God didn't care for Esau. God in fact blessed Esau. But He didn't bless him like He blessed Jacob. So no matter how desperately you play your semantical games... God made a choice of favoritism according to His own purpose that had a direct result on these two men.

Destroy your straw men... dodge.... attempt to explain away the text all you want. At the end, the text will still say that God elected Jacob and not Esau without either of them having done anything to cause that choice.

 

Still waiting on an answer to my question Bob.

Did God really love Jacob more than Esau in your opinion?