Esau I HATED!!!!!

Hello webdog.

The lie is that love fails.

Love doesn't fail when they must pay for their sins? Explain then this to me: 1CO 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails...

According to these verses how does love not fail as when a person pays for their sin, a record of wrongs is kept? Yet the scriptures say that love keeps no record of wrongs?
...allowing someone you love to pay for their sin instead of accepting Christ's payment doesn't change that. It does don't it? It does don't it? God's love has failed.

john.

 

??

Sorry i said you agreed with the Bible

 

Death through genetics 'a' Bob boy?

Timothy makes the grade. HaHa! Nice one man. What you say? Bob what do you think "before they were born means?" Don't hold yer breathe man.

In these days comedians were also among the people. HaHa!.

Anyway Bob it's about time to show us how you are using our quotes on other forums as you said you did. It's not polite to talk behind other peoples backs without giving the oppotunity to respond is it? Just one or two forums and the threads please. This is the second time I've asked.

john.

 

Wrong again BOB

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1567/12.html#000179

Context....Context. say it with me...C O N T E X T

In Christ...James

 

Accepting a gift is in no way "doing it yourself". Your view makes God "wishing that none peristh" a monsterous statement and a lie. </font>[/QUOTE]This response simply isn't true.

If you are offered a gift by someone you don't know with promises attached to it and you go through a mental decision process (work) to determine whether to accept it or not... and that decision will have either favorable or unfavorable consequences to you... and some "good" people decide to take the gift while other "bad" people decide to reject it... then your choice, what you do, is the critical factor in saving you. You have a system of merit, not grace.

However, if that gift is given as grace through regeneration like some people are "gifted" in music through natural birth then you have no claim to merit/credit/glory for making a good choice.

 

So you deny the very words written in the Bible! Wishing that NONE perish shows what, hate? </font>[/QUOTE]No different from what you guys are doing when you deny that God hated Esau and chose Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done any good or evil, right?

 

The statement "God is love" is often explained in terms of a) the revelation, given through the life and teaching of Christ, of the endless life of the triune God as one of mutual afection and honor (Matt 3:17; 17:5; John 3:35;14:31; 16:13-14)
linked with b) the recognition that God made angels and humans to glorify their Maker in sharing the joyful give and take of his divine life according to their own creaturely mode. True as this may seem when John says "God is love"(1 John 4:8), what he means (as he explains later) is that the Father through Christ has actually saved us lost sinners who now believe.

"This is how God showed his love among us, He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love not that we loved God"- we did not-"but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice fo our sins" 1John 4:9-10

As it always is in the New Testament, "us" as the objects of the redeeming love means "us who believe." Neither here nor elsewhere does "we" or "us" refer toevery indiviual belonging to the human race. New Testaent teaching on redemption is particularistic throughout, and when "the world" is said to be loved and redeemed the reference is to the great number of God's elect scattered worldwide throughout the ungodly human community, not to each and every person who did, or shall exist. f this were not so, John and Paul would be contradicting things they say elswhere.

 

This is the untrustworthy reasoning of a truly devoted Calvinist.

#1. They "pretend" not to notice that the ONLY part referenced BEFORE Esau was born is "The older shall serve the younger". A statement on LEADERSHIP and NOT salvation to which BOTH sides agree.

But it is important in a Calvinist defense NOT to notice those inconvenient facts and keep on posting AS IF those exchanges did not exist!!

#2. They then "PRETEND" that in Malachi 1 or in Romans 9 -- God said to Rebecca "before Esau was born" --- "ESAU have I hated!".

Though it is pointed out repeatedly that NO SUCH THING is ever claimed in scripture - they "ignore the inconvenient fact" and continue to repeat their own eisegesis AS IF it was in scripture!!

With such tactics WHO could be expected to fall for it? Someone who is ALREADY Calvinist?

Indeed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let is review the many fallacies in your post.

#1. You claim that in 1John the "WE" and "US menteioned there are the elect and the "others" outside of that scope are those that God does not love, does not save, does not reach out to with the Gospel in any real way.

Yet it is 1John 2 that says "God gave Him as the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR sins and NOT FOR OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

Your own strawman downsized-gospel just came crashing down -- using your own argument above.

#2. You argue that when "God so loved the world" it was just the world of "believers".

Here is the ultimate circular argument because the text says "God so Loved the WORLD that HE GAVE.." before the GIVING of GOD (to create the Gospel) what WORLD would He be seeing? A LOST WORLD maybe?? A WICKED FALLEN world of sinful humanity? OR would He be seeing a world with "SOME believers" in it?

Come on now - I know you can get this easy point.

No pretending now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To which James gives this insightful response --

AS IF any of the points I have listed above were addressed in that link between ascund and james!!

Why not actually ENGAGE in specific points raised?

Why not actually address the list posted there?

Why fall back to a post that does not reference the points I have raised?

Basically - why duck? Why obfuscate? Why dodge?

How is that helping you to make your case?

In that linke you bend the text so that God is telling Rebecca that Jacob is picked because Esau is hated and Jacob is loved. (Thus bending, twisting and merging Malachi 1 CENTURIES AFTER Esau died with Genesis).

Your attempts to bend this back so that "NOT LOVING" and "HATING" are defined by NOT having the Messiah in your lineage -- would make Rueben, Joseph, Dan, Gad, Ahser, Samuel, Joshua, Moses all HATED

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is the untrustworthy reasoning of a truly devoted Calvinist.

#1. They "pretend" not to notice that the ONLY part referenced BEFORE Esau was born is "The older shall serve the younger". A statement on LEADERSHIP and NOT salvation to which BOTH sides agree

But it is important in a Calvinist defense NOT to notice those inconvenient facts and keep on posting AS IF those exchanges did not exist!!</font>[/QUOTE]That is either intentional deception or a failure to read my response when you made a similar accusation against me before.

Ditto.

Ditto again. I already corrected you on this.

All I have said is that Romans 9 says that God hated Esau and that He chose Jacob over Esau before they were born... because that is what the text says.

It would be you that is employing dishonest tactics. You read what you would like to argue against into what I write. That is dishonest.

You also still haven't answered a key question. You say that "hate" doesn't mean "hate" in Romans 9. Earlier you asserted that hate meant "loved less" but recanted.

What exactly does that word mean? It means something and it certainly can't mean "loved equal to Jacob."

The text also can't mean that God elected Jacob only after Jacob and Esau had done good or evil.

Stop evading and just deal with these things you keep skipping around. Stop trying to change the subject. I know you don't want to deal directly with what the text says... you have to deny that it says what it say in order to maintain your bias.

All you've proven so far is you can misrepresent the arguments of others and that you can dream up interpretations so unnecessarily complex that it causes the unwary to forget that you aren't addressing the main problems.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. They (Calvinists) then "PRETEND" that in Malachi 1 or in Romans 9 -- God said to Rebecca "before Esau was born" --- "ESAU have I hated!".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott said "Ditto."

Finally! I am glad we agree on something!


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it is pointed out repeatedly that NO SUCH THING is ever claimed in scripture - they "ignore the inconvenient fact" that the conversation with Rebbecca did NOT include the idea that God hated her infant son -- and so Calvinists just continue to repeat their own eisegesis AS IF it was in scripture anyway!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott said "Ditto again. "

Hmm - we are making far more progress here than I had hoped given the history of this exchange so far.

This is really encouraging.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong. I say that "hate" in Romans 9 is as in the NT use of "HATE" in Luke 14 where saints are told to "HATE their mother and father".

You know - the unnanswered point made 50 times so far and dodged every single time by Calvinists!

I point out that in God's Word we are told to "LOVE our fellow human" and to "HONOR our Parents" which forbids the kind of "hate" that God calls a sin - so it only leaves "hate by comparison" as in less-favor.

In the case of Edom and Israel we have the same thing as with Ephraim where God shows His love and compassion for those that He says he hates -

How is it that God “hates” those that He claims to love?

We see this in Hosea 9 and 11

Here we see God CONTINUING with compassion for those that are doomed! So while I calls this “hate” because the consequence of rebellion is “the curses” according to God’s Word regarding “The Blessings and the Curses” and according to the impartial rule of Romans 2 – Yet IN that context of “the call to repentance” (that we SEE in Romans 2) God continues to love them even though they rebel and are doomed!

So 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).

in Christ,

Bob

 

Scripture SHOWS God to love ALL - unwilling for ANY to perish.

Scripture SHOWS God to LOVE even those who are doomed - those He says He hates (see Hos 9 and 11 as already pointed out in the post above).

The impartial fair and non-arbitrary method that God defines for blessings and curses is available in BOTH the OT and NT (see Romans 2).

This is so obvious it can not be refuted!!

So when we see God speaking of EDOM in Mal 1 and saying that "he hated Esau" (as in the history SHOWN in that nation and the curses reaped) it is by way of comparison to Israel.

Calvinists love to twist that around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

In doing that - they SHOW Calvinism and what IT NEEDS - but they find no scripture to support it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

T

Believe me - I DO see your need to trash exegesis entirely and pretend that when God said to Rebecca "The older shall serve the younger" he was not actually talking about the OLDER SERVING the younger (as in leadership) rather He was really saying "The older is going to hell".

I understand completely how that even though you READ the words about "SERVICE" - the Calvinist "filter" demands that we SUBSTITUTE "hell" and "Salvation" Where we see "SERVE".

Don't get me wrong when I object to that - I am not really saying that I don't see why Calvinism NEEDS to eisegete the text as it does!

I am simply pointing out that those who are allowed to stick with exegesis and sound Bible study in Romans 9 will be accepting that text as IT SAYS "the older will SERVE the younger" and see it as a LEADERSHIP and SERVICE prediction/selection.

You are correct when you point out that Romans 9 seeks to address salvation - you are wrong when you use that as an excust to try to place a "wooden filter" on the text and disallow ANY Bible exegesis where the actual WORDS don't help Calvinism.

Why not just let the argument IN the text stand as it reads?

Let SERVE mean SERVE - instead of "HELL".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong.

God never makes the case that the saints are saved BECAUSE He is arbitrarily hating the wicked/lost.

The fate of the wicked does NOT SAVE the elect.

Rather the Romans 2 point of IMPARTIAL judgment with the result that SOME are saved and SOME are lost is the early CONTEXT for all the rest of Romans!!

Malachi 1 SHOWS how the history of rebellion vs obedience results in curse vs blessing.

Lev 18 and 20 SHOW how the CHOSEN are warned on the SAME GROUNDS that the wicked are cursed!

Romans 11 SHOWS how the NT Christians are warned on the SAME grounds as the OT Jews failed.

Instead of arbitrary selection of saints - it is "the impartial God" of Romans 2:11 that brings about salvation.

God points to the NATIONS of Edom and Israel (as God was was shown doing REPEATEDLY in the comments on Romans 9) - and shows how wickedness in those nations - their choices - give the predictable results.

It is the SAME impartial system Paul describes in Romans 2 and in 6 and in 8 ...

In Christ,

Bob