Romans 9

[dreamaccount200]

Did God hate Esau? Is individual election in view here?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

No and No. Read any of Arminians posts concerning those issues.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=10681 is a good place to start.

[Colossians]

There is no possible way God could tell us that Esau was hated, and get us to believe it. No way in the world.
Even if He said so directly like "Esau I hated", we know this wouldn't be true, because we know He didn't hate Esau and we know we don't need the bible to teach us anything on this matter.
We are simply reading words which say the opposite of what we know to be true, words which are just put there to make Calvinists think they are right.


So it is not possible for God to actually say something that disagrees with what we know to be true beforehand, and actually change our thinking.
We don't care if He says "Esau I hated": we know He really meant "Esau I loved", and that He was just seeing who would be tricked by the words.
And even if He didn't want to trick us, but actually meant what He said, we would tell Him He's wrong and that He should repent from His sinful thoughts and think nice thoughts.
Like us!

[dreamaccount200]

There is no possible way God could tell us that Esau was hated, and get us to believe it. No way in the world.
Even if He said so directly like "Esau I hated", we know this wouldn't be true, because we know He didn't hate Esau and we know we don't need the bible to teach us anything on this matter.
We are simply reading words which say the opposite of what we know to be true, words which are just put there to make Calvinists think they are right.


So it is not possible for God to actually say something that disagrees with what we know to be true beforehand, and actually change our thinking.
We don't care if He says "Esau I hated": we know He really meant "Esau I loved", and that He was just seeing who would be tricked by the words.
And even if He didn't want to trick us, but actually meant what He said, we would tell Him He's wrong and that He should repent from His sinful thoughts and think nice thoughts.
Like us!

Calvinist would have us to believe that before Esau was ever born, that God hated him and predestined him to hell. However this is not what the scripture teaches. (1) When God spoke of Jacob and Esau in this passage, he was speaking of them in their national capacities, not individually. We know this because it is stated that the elder shall serve the younger. Esau never served Jacob , but his descendents, the Edomites did. See 1 sam 14:47, 2 sam 8:14, 1 kings 11:15-16 , 1kings 22:47 and 2 kings 14:7.
(2) Hatred in this verse is not absolute but relative to a higher choice. See luke 14:26 . Are we to hate our mother and father? Of course not, its only that we are to love Jesus more. See john 12:25 . Do we hate our life here? Or is it that we should prefer life in heaven with Jesus? So we see that hate is not always used in a absolute sense but is also used in a realitive sense to a higher choice.
(3) Esau was hated (in this sense rejected ,rather) as the line thru whom Jesus would come.
(4)When God said Esau have I hated, Paul was quoting from Malachi 1:2-4. Again, this was speaking of them in their national capacities. It is not true, as Calvinism would have us believe

[lee_merrill]

Even if He said so directly like "Esau I hated", we know this wouldn't be true, because we know He didn't hate Esau and we know we don't need the bible to teach us anything on this matter.
People do say "hate" in Hebrew means "love less," only we read "a time to love, and a time to hate" in Ecc. 3:8, which is a series of very opposite opposites, so this certainly cannot mean "a time to love less" here.

And people also say there is no evidence God rejected Esau per se, only we read in Hebrews of what we must think of Esau's character:

Hebrews 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

He was godless, and the implication here in Hebrews is that to be like Esau is to be lost.

People also note that groups are associated with Esau and Jacob, and mentioned in Romans 9-11, and then conclude that Romans 9 is entirely about groups being chosen or not. As if a mention of one aspect made the whole passage be about that aspect, which in fact it does not!

A mention of groups does not make the whole passage be about selection of groups.

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

"Who" is in fact, singular, this is not "which groups resist his will?" No, it's about individuals as well as being about groups, and about salvation of individuals:

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth, thoroughly and quickly."

And this is what the passage is primarily about, salvation is by God's decision, "his sentence on earth," carried out to completion.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

There is no possible way God could tell us that Esau was hated, and get us to believe it. No way in the world.
Even if He said so directly like "Esau I hated", we know this wouldn't be true, because we know He didn't hate Esau and we know we don't need the bible to teach us anything on this matter.
We are simply reading words which say the opposite of what we know to be true, words which are just put there to make Calvinists think they are right.

Just like God saying that He desied all men to be saved. Of course He only meant a hand full of the elect. So Colossians, when Christ said that we must HATE our father, mother, brother and sister, to follow Him - did He really mean to hate them?

[seer]

Calvinist would have us to believe that before Esau was ever born, that God hated him and predestined him to hell. However this is not what the scripture teaches. (1) When God spoke of Jacob and Esau in this passage, he was speaking of them in their national capacities, not individually. We know this because it is stated that the elder shall serve the younger. Esau never served Jacob , but his descendents, the Edomites did. See 1 sam 14:47, 2 sam 8:14, 1 kings 11:15-16 , 1kings 22:47 and 2 kings 14:7.
(2) Hatred in this verse is not absolute but relative to a higher choice. See luke 14:26 . Are we to hate our mother and father? Of course not, its only that we are to love Jesus more. See john 12:25 . Do we hate our life here? Or is it that we should prefer life in heaven with Jesus? So we see that hate is not always used in a absolute sense but is also used in a realitive sense to a higher choice.
(3) Esau was hated (in this sense rejected ,rather) as the line thru whom Jesus would come.
(4)When God said Esau have I hated, Paul was quoting from Malachi 1:2-4. Again, this was speaking of them in their national capacities. It is not true, as Calvinism would have us believe

Correct, if we are to follow thw logic here. God hated and judged the person Esau apart from his sin (before he did anything good or evil). And if the Calvinist says that God judged Esau because He foresaw his sin, we could then say that God accepted Jacob because God foresaw his repentance.

[dreamaccount200]

Correct, if we are to follow thw logic here. God hated and judged the person Esau apart from his sin (before he did anything good or evil). And if the Calvinist says that God judged Esau because He foresaw his sin, we could then say that God accepted Jacob because God foresaw his repentance.
:wink:

[Ormly]

God hates all reprobate because all reprobate hates Him. Esau fits that discription.

[seer]

God hates all reprobate because all reprobate hates Him. Esau fits that discription.

So when Jesus taught us to love our enemies so we can be like our Father in heaven, was He blowing smoke?

[yxboom]

People do say "hate" in Hebrew means "love less," only we read "a time to love, and a time to hate" in Ecc. 3:8, which is a series of very opposite opposites, so this certainly cannot mean "a time to love less" here.
The Bible I read places Romans 9 in the NT. IIRC the NT was written in Greek.

[Ormly]

God hates all reprobate because all reprobate hates Him. Esau fits that discription.

So when Jesus taught us to love our enemies so we can be like our Father in heaven, was He blowing smoke?

Are our enemies, reprobate? Would we even know that, as God would? God can called someone reprobate and it would be true, but can you or I? So now what were saying about Jesus blowing smoke?

[seer]

Are our enemies, reprobate? Would we even know that, as God would? God can called someone reprobate and it would be true, but can you or I? So now what were saying about Jesus blowing smoke?

So if we could somehow know who the lost were then we would be justified in hating them? Wasn't Jesus saying that God loved His enemies? Certainly God knows who the reprobate are...

You know Ormly, it seems to me that in the 9 months or so that I have been gone your heart has grown much colder... Are you going through a hard time?

[smaller]

Are our enemies, reprobate? Would we even know that, as God would? God can called someone reprobate and it would be true, but can you or I? So now what were saying about Jesus blowing smoke?

So if we could somehow know who the lost were then we would be justified in hating them? Wasn't Jesus saying that God loved His enemies? Certainly God knows who the reprobate are...

You know Ormly, it seems to me that in the 9 months or so that I have been gone your heart has grown much colder... Are you going through a hard time?

Ormly fills the role of the "token false accuser" here at Tweb. This happens everywhere where The Word is being handled.

He is being used bigtime and not for good. He is an example of what it is like to be locked into the eternal judgment of other people to the point of rabidity. He agrees with NO ONE, not even within himself.

It's sad really. He has been accusing me of being in a cult for what Ormly, 2 years now? This seems to be the sum total of his ability to interact with me and others as well: "What kind of a cult are you in????"

[themuzicman]

Did God hate Esau? Is individual election in view here?

You gotta read Romans 9 in context. The beginning of the chapter clearly points to Paul's lament over Israel, and more specifically their failure to come into the New Covenant established by Christ in their midst.

Thus, the three analogies that follow are meant to reveal something about those covenants and the relationship between them.

Jacob and Esau demonstrates God's role in choosing to provide salvation through one covenant, and wrath through another, which Paul expounds upon later.

So, while God DID elect Jacob over Esau, that was to select the person through whom the promise would come, but Paul is NOT importing individual election into this text, because the context clearly points another way.

Michael

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: People do say "hate" in Hebrew means "love less," only we read "a time to love, and a time to hate" in Ecc. 3:8, which is a series of very opposite opposites, so this certainly cannot mean "a time to love less" here.

Yxboom: The Bible I read places Romans 9 in the NT. IIRC the NT was written in Greek.
Yes, but this is an OT quotation here...

Michael: The beginning of the chapter clearly points to Paul's lament over Israel, and more specifically their failure to come into the New Covenant established by Christ in their midst.
He is also praying for them to be saved! Rom. 10:1. This certainly is praying about individual salvation, for those in the very group God rejected, so how can the beginning of this chapter described as Paul giving up on Israel? And Paul makes this all God's decision! See chapter 11, this is not a response of God, this is "his sentence on earth," only the remnant will be saved.

Michael: Jacob and Esau demonstrates God's role in choosing to provide salvation through one covenant, and wrath through another, which Paul expounds upon later.
But again, "who" is singular in "who resists his will?" And the question is not "who else has a right to make covenants?" as in "which covenant-making group resists his will?"

No, the context points to salvation, by God's decision:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers...

Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Romans 9:23-24 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

And let us note that this is both groups! And "for glory" must mean a decision to save them, that is a primary part of the choice...

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

But again, "who" is singular in "who resists his will?" And the question is not "who else has a right to make covenants?" as in "which covenant-making group resists his will?"

The objector in context is a Jew. The "who" that resisted God's will was Israel. Paul makes that clear as the chapter unfolds and through chapter 10,11.

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved;for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with rigor and dispatch."

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith;but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

[rt656]

Anthropomorphing a human view of the emotion 'hate' on God is an error. God does not have 'human' emotions. God loves, hates and is angry without sin--perfectly. I think we need to take God at His word. If we begin to doubt some words in the Bible, we must throw them all out; who is a fit judge?

This said, who does Scripture reveal as the objects of His wrath? The answer is obvious--as is God's sovereignty in election. Numerous Scriptures support this--not just the verses in Romans. If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.

[seer]

Anthropomorphing a human view of the emotion 'hate' on God is an error. God does not have 'human' emotions. God loves, hates and is angry without sin--perfectly. I think we need to take God at His word. If we begin to doubt some words in the Bible, we must throw them all out; who is a fit judge?

It's about they way "hate" is used in scripture, like in Luke 14:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

I'am sure that Jesus wasn't teaching us to hate our mother and father.

[Ormly]

Are our enemies, reprobate? Would we even know that, as God would? God can called someone reprobate and it would be true, but can you or I? So now what were saying about Jesus blowing smoke?

[QUOTE]
So if we could somehow know who the lost were then we would be justified in hating them? Wasn't Jesus saying that God loved His enemies? Certainly God knows who the reprobate are...


Show where it says God loved His enemies. He destroyed them the last I looked.

You know Ormly, it seems to me that in the 9 months or so that I have been gone your heart has grown much colder... Are you going through a hard time?

My heart is fine, never loved God more in my life. What makes you think that? Maybe you just sense my intolerance for willful stupidity and untoward remarks like yours when you say, "was Jesus just blowing smoke". Don't question my "coldness". Question your pride and arrogance that moves you to such heights.

[Ormly]

Anthropomorphing a human view of the emotion 'hate' on God is an error. God does not have 'human' emotions. God loves, hates and is angry without sin--perfectly. I think we need to take God at His word. If we begin to doubt some words in the Bible, we must throw them all out; who is a fit judge?

This said, who does Scripture reveal as the objects of His wrath? The answer is obvious--as is God's sovereignty in election. Numerous Scriptures support this--not just the verses in Romans. If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.

Absolutely!

[seer]

Show where it says God loved His enemies. He destroyed them the last I looked.

First, one can destroy even that which he loves. If necessary.

Second:

Matthew 5:

You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How are we to be Sons of God? How are we the be prefect like our Father? By loving our enemies. Just like He does.

Luke 6:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

We are to love our enemy, like our Father who is kind and merciful to the ungrateful and wicked. And are you suggesting that God is no better than a tax collector or sinner who only loves those that love them?

[themuzicman]

Anthropomorphing a human view of the emotion 'hate' on God is an error. God does not have 'human' emotions. God loves, hates and is angry without sin--perfectly. I think we need to take God at His word. If we begin to doubt some words in the Bible, we must throw them all out; who is a fit judge?

The doctrine of impassibility is fading from the theological scene, since it is simply untenable to say that all emotions attributed to God are anthropomorphisms.

This said, who does Scripture reveal as the objects of His wrath? The answer is obvious--as is God's sovereignty in election. Numerous Scriptures support this--not just the verses in Romans.

As yet uncited.

If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.

Since you have no scriptural foundation for this argument, it would be hard to accept this in any manner.

Michael

[Ormly]

Show where it says God loved His enemies. He destroyed them the last I looked.

First, one can destroy even that which he loves. If necessary.

Second:

Matthew 5:

You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How are we to be Sons of God? How are we the be prefect like our Father? By loving our enemies. Just like He does.

Luke 6:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

We are to love our enemy, like our Father who is kind and merciful to the ungrateful and wicked. And are you suggesting that God is no better than a tax collector or sinner who only loves those that love them?

No. And now I'm more than suggesting --- that you are jerk.

[8320john]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]The doctrine of impassibility is fading from the theological scene, since it is simply untenable to say that all emotions attributed to God are anthropomorphisms.



Quote:

If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.



Since you have no scriptural foundation for this argument, it would be hard to accept this in any manner.

There are no applicable verses to validate election before the foundation of the world? Or there are no verses to indicate God passed the non elect by before the foundations of the world?

[themuzicman]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]The doctrine of impassibility is fading from the theological scene, since it is simply untenable to say that all emotions attributed to God are anthropomorphisms.



Quote:

If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.



Since you have no scriptural foundation for this argument, it would be hard to accept this in any manner.

There are no applicable verses to validate election before the foundation of the world? Or there are no verses to indicate God passed the non elect by before the foundations of the world?
1) You provided no verses to support your assertion.
2) Same

3) The thread is about Romans 9 and individual election, so we should keep the context of the conversation surrounding Romans 9.

Michael

[dreamaccount200]

You gotta read Romans 9 in context. The beginning of the chapter clearly points to Paul's lament over Israel, and more specifically their failure to come into the New Covenant established by Christ in their midst.

Thus, the three analogies that follow are meant to reveal something about those covenants and the relationship between them.

Jacob and Esau demonstrates God's role in choosing to provide salvation through one covenant, and wrath through another, which Paul expounds upon later.

So, while God DID elect Jacob over Esau, that was to select the person through whom the promise would come, but Paul is NOT importing individual election into this text, because the context clearly points another way.

Michael

I agree

[dreamaccount200]

Anthropomorphing a human view of the emotion 'hate' on God is an error. God does not have 'human' emotions. God loves, hates and is angry without sin--perfectly. I think we need to take God at His word. If we begin to doubt some words in the Bible, we must throw them all out; who is a fit judge?

This said, who does Scripture reveal as the objects of His wrath? The answer is obvious--as is God's sovereignty in election. Numerous Scriptures support this--not just the verses in Romans. If God ordained (elected) those who would believe (before creation), then He has loved them eternally--and the converse would be true regarding the non-elect--He has hated them eternally. These decisions were made before the foundation of the world--in eternity.

1st Election is not unconditional and 2nd it is based on foreknowledge.

[seer]

Originally posted by seer

Show where it says God loved His enemies. He destroyed them the last I looked.

First, one can destroy even that which he loves. If necessary.

Second:

Matthew 5:

You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How are we to be Sons of God? How are we the be prefect like our Father? By loving our enemies. Just like He does.

Luke 6:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

We are to love our enemy, like our Father who is kind and merciful to the ungrateful and wicked. And are you suggesting that God is no better than a tax collector or sinner who only loves those that love them?


No. And now I'm more than suggesting --- that you are jerk.

I'am a jerk for quoting scripture that tells us to love our enemies so we can be like God? That He is kind to the wicked and unthankful? And that we should be too?

[8320john]

[QUOTE=8320john]
1) You provided no verses to support your assertion.
2) Same

3) The thread is about Romans 9 and individual election, so we should keep the context of the conversation surrounding Romans 9.

Michael

Yes, individual election...my question to you is:

"...are you saying there are no verses that speak to the issue of individual election before the foundation of the world or that there is no Scripture that indicates God passed by the NON elect before the foundation of the world?"

Does that not impact Romans 9?


Rom 9:14-16

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Wh3n pray tell did God come to this frame of mind?

Paul answers my question.


Eph 1:4-5
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Or are we talking about the same issue?

[themuzicman]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]

Yes, individual election...my question to you is:

"...are you saying there are no verses that speak to the issue of individual election before the foundation of the world or that there is no Scripture that indicates God passed by the NON elect before the foundation of the world?"

Does that not impact Romans 9?

Romans 9 should impact us, rather than us impacting Romans 9. We do not control and manuver the text. It should control and manuver us.

Rom 9:14-16

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


However, this is taken out of context, and individual election assumed before eisgeting this verse. As I showed above, the context of Romans 9-11 is Covenants, not individuals. Remember that Israel was elected as a nation, not as individuals, and this section is ABOUT Israel.

]
Paul answers my question.


Eph 1:4-5
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Or are we talking about the same issue?

Paul doesn't answer questions from Romans 9 in Ephesians 1. That's the worst way to take something out of context.

It's like reading the verse that says, "Judas went and hung himself" and combining it with "Go and do likewise".

Michael

[yxboom]

1st Election is not unconditional and 2nd it is based on foreknowledge.
unless foreknowledge is incomplete what you just said is absurd.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Michael: As I showed above, the context of Romans 9-11 is Covenants, not individuals.
And again, "who" is singular in "who resists his will?" And the question is not "who else has a right to make covenants?" as in "which covenant-making group resists his will?"

Seer: The objector in context is a Jew.
Surely not, though:

Romans 9:4 Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

We should then read "one of them will say to me," if this meant a Jewish person in verse 19.

The "who" that resisted God's will was Israel. Paul makes that clear as the chapter unfolds and through chapter 10,11.
Gentiles don't resist God's will, and Jewish people don't either, though! The clear intended answer to Paul's question is "No one!"

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right ...

Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing ...

Romans 9:23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known ...

Romans 9:25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people'...

Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.

Clearly Paul is saying the decisions are all being made by God, and they are effective ones, and no one resists his will.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Hi everyone,


And again, "who" is singular in "who resists his will?" And the question is not "who else has a right to make covenants?" as in "which covenant-making group resists his will?"


Surely not, though:

Romans 9:4 Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

We should then read "one of them will say to me," if this meant a Jewish person in verse 19.


Gentiles don't resist God's will, and Jewish people don't either, though! The clear intended answer to Paul's question is "No one!"

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right ...

Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing ...

Romans 9:23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known ...

Romans 9:25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people'...

Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.

Clearly Paul is saying the decisions are all being made by God, and they are effective ones, and no one resists his will.

Blessings,
Lee


Again, this is clearly about Israel: And they certainly did resist God's will:

Act 7:51

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

And Paul makes this clear in context:

Rom.10:21

"But of Israel he says, All day long I have reached out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Now is this reaching out to Israel by God genuine? Yet they still resisted...

[lee_merrill]

Hi Seer,

Well, now we have two sets of verses! So let's not do what is done in the "assurance of salvation" discussions, and say "one set of verses erases the other set," and never the twain shall meet.

Now regarding the verses you mentioned, I would ask if their resistance was effective resistance! For I believe we may hope for all to be saved, and thus even rebellious Israel will eventually turn to God, even after judgment, even the judgment of death, and hell.

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved...

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

So then God's will is not resisted, ultimately, and all his purposes are accomplished.

Now we will need to hear an explanation of the verses that show God effectively choosing, in Romans 9, as well as any refutation of my explanation here. Let's try and make a synthesis, and not skip any verses...

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Now regarding the verses you mentioned, I would ask if their resistance was effective resistance! For I believe we may hope for all to be saved, and thus even rebellious Israel will eventually turn to God, even after judgment, even the judgment of death, and hell.

Well yes, Universalism would work here. But one wonders how Israel could resist God at one point in history and not at a later point. Was God not trying hard enough the first time?

[dreamaccount200]

unless foreknowledge is incomplete what you just said is absurd.

Only if think that what God forknows he must also cause. This of course would be absurd

[lee_merrill]

Hi Seer,

But one wonders how Israel could resist God at one point in history and not at a later point. Was God not trying hard enough the first time?
Well, God could have a purpose in people refusing him, for a while.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Without planned disobedience, without planned resistance, there could be no chance for showing mercy.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Hi Seer,


Well, God could have a purpose in people refusing him, for a while.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Without planned disobedience, without planned resistance, there could be no chance for showing mercy.

Blessings,
Lee

Yes, this determinist, universal view is quite satisfying - to me at least. Yet there are other things in scripture that speak against it...

[Xmansmommy]

There is no possible way God could tell us that Esau was hated, and get us to believe it. No way in the world.
Even if He said so directly like "Esau I hated", we know this wouldn't be true, because we know He didn't hate Esau and we know we don't need the bible to teach us anything on this matter.
We are simply reading words which say the opposite of what we know to be true, words which are just put there to make Calvinists think they are right.


So it is not possible for God to actually say something that disagrees with what we know to be true beforehand, and actually change our thinking.
We don't care if He says "Esau I hated": we know He really meant "Esau I loved", and that He was just seeing who would be tricked by the words.
And even if He didn't want to trick us, but actually meant what He said, we would tell Him He's wrong and that He should repent from His sinful thoughts and think nice thoughts.
Like us!

Yeah, and in much the same way God meant to trick us when we read in scripture that Jacob loved Leah...yet in the very verses God looked upon her and seen that she was hated, right?

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.”

Maybe God and the whole lot of them were just schizophrenic and nobody really knows what the heck the definition of love or hate really is. :ahem:

[seer]

Yeah, and in much the same way God meant to trick us when we read in scripture that Jacob loved Leah...yet in the very verses God looked upon her and seen that she was hated, right?

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.”

Maybe God and the whole lot of them were just schizophrenic and nobody really knows what the heck the definition of love or hate really is. :ahem:

Yes Linda, like in Luke 14:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

I'am sure that Jesus wasn't teaching us to hate our mother and father.

[Xmansmommy]

Exactly Jim. Hear, Hear! :cheers:

[Colossians]

Arminians like to say that "Esua I hated" means "I didn't love Esau as much as Jacob".
Then they tell you on a different thread that God loves everybody equally.


They are a confused lot.

[Xmansmommy]

So Colossians, did Jacob hate Leah or did he love her less than he loved Rachel?

[seer]

Arminians like to say that "Esua I hated" means "I didn't love Esau as much as Jacob".
Then they tell you on a different thread that God loves everybody equally.


They are a confused lot.

And so are you. Again you have avoided my question:

Luke 14:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Is Christ telling us to hate our Parents? Our Parents that the Law calls us to honor and obey?

And I do not think that God loves all men the same.

[yxboom]

Only if think that what God forknows he must also cause. This of course would be absurd
Now if God's election is based on foreknowledge. Knowledge that God possessed before anyone ever made a choice. Granting that God's knowledge is infallible. Pray tell where is the conditon of election when her election was settled before she ever made a choice?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Seer: this determinist, universal view is quite satisfying - to me at least. Yet there are other things in scripture that speak against it...
Well, start a thread, and let's talk! I'm not anxious to believe a statement that's not true.

XMM: and in much the same way God meant to trick us when we read in scripture that Jacob loved Leah...yet in the very verses God looked upon her and seen that she was hated, right?

Seer: I'am sure that Jesus wasn't teaching us to hate our mother and father.
How about viewing this as different forms of love and hate? For example, there are many meanings of love, the Greeks had four words for different kinds of love. So there can also be their opposites, different kinds of hate, so Jacob could love Leah in one sense, and hate her in another, we can love our parents in the sense of "agape," yet reject natural affections, if they insist we should put them above God. We even have the expression, "a love-hate relationship."

Seer: And I do not think that God loves all men the same.
Well, he does in the sense of wanting what's best for them, I believe! Only he may "hate the wicked" (Ps. 11:5) in another sense, opposite to another form of love, hating what they have become.

Blessings,
Lee

[Xmansmommy]

How about viewing this as different forms of love and hate? For example, there are many meanings of love, the Greeks had four words for different kinds of love. So there can also be their opposites, different kinds of hate, so Jacob could love Leah in one sense, and hate her in another, we can love our parents in the sense of "agape," yet reject natural affections, if they insist we should put them above God. We even have the expression, "a love-hate relationship."

Hey Lee. :smile: I don't have a problem with God having a love/hate relationship. I think it poses a problem for those Calvinists who think God don't love the reprobate but only hates them though. That was the reason for my question in the first place as it seems Colossians was advocating that belief.

[rt656]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]The doctrine of impassibility is fading from the theological scene, since it is simply untenable to say that all emotions attributed to God are anthropomorphisms.

Why? Are you saying that God feels emotions like a human?

[you]As yet uncited.(regarding verses to support election)

John 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Ephesians 1:3-4 - Blessed <be> the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly <places> in Christ: {4} According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Blessed are those you choose and bring near to live in your courts! We are filled with the good things of your house, of your holy temple. (Psalm 65:4)
All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

For many are invited, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. (Mark 13:20)

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. (John 15:16)

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

And we know that in all things God works for the good of thosem who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." (Romans 10:20)

And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." (Romans 11:4-8)

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:4-6)

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have. (Philippians 1:29-30)

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5)

[rt656]

1st Election is not unconditional and 2nd it is based on foreknowledge.


Scripture contradicts this--apart from it being illogical given the attributes of God.

[themuzicman]

[QUOTE=themuzicman]The doctrine of impassibility is fading from the theological scene, since it is simply untenable to say that all emotions attributed to God are anthropomorphisms.

Why? Are you saying that God feels emotions like a human?

I'm saying that God feels emotion like God.

[you]As yet uncited.(regarding verses to support election)

John 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Process (once we read this chapter in context):

1) God draws (v44)
2) Man hears and learns (v45) by his own free will believes (v47)
3) God gives them to Jesus (v37) for as long as they believe (v40)
4) Man comes to Christ (v44)
5) Christ raises those who believe on the last day (v44,47)

2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Ephesians 1:3-4 - Blessed <be> the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly <places> in Christ: {4} According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Unexegeted, I see a COVENANTAL election, containing all those who choose to participate in it, and not an individual election.

Blessed are those you choose and bring near to live in your courts! We are filled with the good things of your house, of your holy temple. (Psalm 65:4)

:lmbo: The Old Covenant was a corporate covenant. The writer isn't speaking of individuals, but the Nation of Israel.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

And who does God desire to be saved? (1 TIm 2:4)

For many are invited, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)

But no commentary on the criterion for who is chosen. Insufficient.

If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. (Mark 13:20)

Again, the elect are those who participate in a covenant, not a list of individuals.

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. (John 15:16)

:lmbo: Jesus is speaking to his disciples, here. Yes, the book of John demonstrates that Jesus approached each of them and said to them, "Follow me." This has precisely zero to do with salvation.

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

Nice commentary on persecution, not election.

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)


Well, since "appointed" is in the Greek means "those who were commanded" or "those who were under authority", and the context of Act 13 is the growth of the church and the excitment of those who were coming to Christ, it's pretty clear that Luke wasn't referring to individual election, here.

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

Yes, we all believe that we are saved by grace.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of thosem who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

ANd election is in here... where? This sounds more like God's favor coming to those who love Him.

And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." (Romans 10:20)

Yes, God reveals Himself when we are drawn. This does not turn into automatic salvation. Men must still choose to believe.

And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." (Romans 11:4-8)

The corporate election of Israel was already discussed, which happens to be the context of Romans 9-11.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:4-6)

Again, we see corporate election in the New Covenant.

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

Same.

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)


When were we prepared?

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have. (Philippians 1:29-30)

If you're claiming that faith is a gift because of this verse, then you have to claim that persecutionis a gift from God, as well, since that's the focus of this passage.

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13)

Well, if you're going to claim that this is election, then you're going to have to claim either to be perfect, or that God sins through you. Which is it?

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5)

God draws, we respond. What's hard about that?



Nice try, but spamming scripture without proper exegesis and explaining your intent isn't very helpful. As you can see, you've taken many of these scriptures out of context and read your own meaning into them, when that meaning simply isn't there.

Care to try again?

Michael