Death or Hell

[Webb]

And WHEN do they go astray according to that verse? Not when born, but after. How many babies have you heard speaking lies immediately after birth? They can't even talk yet. You must have never been a father or you have had some unusual children.

 

[smaller]

Isn't this speaking of the wicked?

What does it mean that they are estranged from the womb?

Scripture says what it says.

How you read it may have to be fitted to suit your doctrinal biases more than likely, which means you have to either alter the text or change your bias.

The text itself however is not subject to change at this point, as it is written.

Romans 9 in essence says the identical same thing:

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Neither one of them had technically done anything at that point. Paul could have certainly not laid on the fact that God HATED on Esau, and said, you know, Esau is just a baby in the womb and hasn't done anything good or bad yet, but God loves JACOB more, so lets call it LESS LOVED by comparison. (an angle often run by freewillers)



But he didn't. He flat out said Esau was hated by God before he did anything.


Cue in the Psalm:

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


Pre-programming brought to you courtesy of The Word of God.



s

 

[smaller]

And WHEN do they go astray according to that verse? Not when born, but after. How many babies have you heard speaking lies immediately after birth? They can't even talk yet. You must have never been a father or you have had some unusual children.

David understood this matter for himself as well:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[Eventide]

But he didn't. He flat out said Esau was hated by God before he did anything.

I hear this all the time and it's flat out wrong..

The scripture there in Romans 9 says..

AS IT IS WRITTEN...

Where was that written... in Malachi.. thousands of years AFTER Esau lived his life.

Now I'm sure that many determinists won't be able to handle this simple truth.. but it's right there in plain English.

 

[smaller]

I hear this all the time and it's flat out wrong..

The scripture there in Romans 9 says..

AS IT IS WRITTEN...

Where was that written... in Malachi.. thousands of years AFTER Esau lived his life.

Now I'm sure that many determinists won't be able to handle this simple truth.. but it's right there in plain English.

Paul heard it exactly the way he described in, and not as a matter of 'point in time.'

It is in an identical teaching that is found numerous places with numerous people in the text presented in the same 'manner.'

If you see the manner term applied, it was in fact applied to Esau and Jacob while they were yet in the womb.

Genesis 25:23
And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

The house of Esau, the entirety of his house, ALL of same, were promised only one thing from God, and it is a SURETY:

Obadiah 1:18
And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

s

 

[Eventide]

I was certain you wouldn't be able to accept it smaller.. but it's right there in the text.. and furthermore.. that would be like God hating Esau for absolutely NO REASON.. the very thing which He accused others of against himself.

Some people simply can't be corrected.. it's their (determinstic) view or nothing.

 

[smaller]

I was certain you wouldn't be able to accept it smaller.. but it's right there in the text..

As is his PROMISED destruction of he and his house, right there to see.

and furthermore.. that would be like God hating Esau for absolutely NO REASON.. the very thing which He accused others of against himself.

Who says God has no reasons in that?

Some people simply can't be corrected.. it's their (determinstic) view or nothing.

Determinism is like any other type of filter. Numerous sights will be garnered.

I see and accept those things written as deterministic, yet I also 'deterministically' see no ill upon him any more than I would see ill on Ishmael or Cain or Manasseh or Gershom or any number of other given examples.

They are to be understood 'spiritually' and 'personally' for every believer.

go figure.

s

 

[Butch5]

Scripture says what it says.

How you read it may have to be fitted to suit your doctrinal biases more than likely, which means you have to either alter the text or change your bias.

The text itself however is not subject to change at this point, as it is written.

Romans 9 in essence says the identical same thing:

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Neither one of them had technically done anything at that point. Paul could have certainly not laid on the fact that God HATED on Esau, and said, you know, Esau is just a baby in the womb and hasn't done anything good or bad yet, but God loves JACOB more, so lets call it LESS LOVED by comparison. (an angle often run by freewillers)



But he didn't. He flat out said Esau was hated by God before he did anything.


Cue in the Psalm:

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


Pre-programming brought to you courtesy of The Word of God.



s

Actually, that's not what Paul said. The statement Jacob have a love and Esau have I hated is Paul's evidence to prove the point he just made that God chose Jacob over Esau. The choosing of Jacob over Esau was in regard to who it would be that the Messiah would come through. God chose Jacob to be the line of Christ rather than Esau. To prove this point Paul looks at how God dealt with these two men and the nations that came from each of them. God favored Jacob and the Israelites over Esau and the Edomites. If you want to know why God hated Esau and the Edomites read Obadiah, it's just one chapter but it tells why God hated the Edomites.


However you didn't answer my questions.

Isn't this speaking of the wicked?

What does it mean that they are estranged from the womb?

 

[Eventide]

As is his PROMISED destruction of he and his house, right there to see.

And for OBVIOUS scriptural REASONS... for example.. Esau sold his birthright to satisfy his flesh.

Who says God has no reasons in that?

Anyone who can't see that this was written thousands of years after Esau lived his life.. and with error proclaim that God hated him before he was even born... that would certainly be without ANY REASON..

Determinism is like any other type of filter. Numerous sights will be garnered.

I see and accept those things written as deterministic, yet I also 'deterministically' see no ill upon him any more than I would see ill on Ishmael or Cain or Manasseh or Gershom or any number of other given examples.

They are to be understood 'spiritually' and 'personally' for every believer.

go figure.

s

And yet you just stated that God hated Esau before he was born.. and unscriptural claim which certainly props itself upon its own deterministic thinking.

 

[smaller]

Actually, that's not what Paul said. The statement Jacob have a love and Esau have I hated is Paul's evidence to prove the point he just made that God chose Jacob over Esau.

Indeed. God loved Jacob and hated Esau before their feet ever hit the ground.

The choosing of Jacob over Esau was in regard to who it would be that the Messiah would come through.

Doesn't change the fact that God hated Esau.

God chose Jacob to be the line of Christ rather than Esau.

Were that the case there would seem little need to hate Esau.

To prove this point Paul looks at how God dealt with these two men and the nations that came from each of them. God favored Jacob and the Israelites over Esau and the Edomites. If you want to know why God hated Esau and the Edomites read Obadiah, it's just one chapter but it tells why God hated the Edomites.

Just cited to Eventide the fact that the destruction of the house of Esau was also promised by God. That promise is a SURETY as The Lord has spoken it.

However you didn't answer my questions.

Isn't this speaking of the wicked?

However you want to slice it. The fact isn't going to change to suit 'justification' based on freewill actions done post birth. I would certainly see this matter as the 'birth' of every last sinner. I also exclude God Himself in Christ from that measure based on Divine Birth and Holy Spirit Generation of Him, even though I would consider Mary to be under sin like everyone else.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

And we know full well from text that 'all' are born spiritually DEAD, are sinners ALL, having sinned and have sin.

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

No person is 'born' an instant believer other than GOD Himself in flesh.

What does it mean that they are estranged from the womb?

It means we were ALL sold under sin and carnal in our fleshly nature and understandings.

s

 

[smaller]

And for OBVIOUS scriptural REASONS... for example.. Esau sold his birthright to satisfy his flesh.

Esau never had it to begin with. Even his 'legal' birthright was spoiled from the womb, Jacob holding fast to his HEEL.

Seriously ET, you have to pay more attention.

Anyone who can't see that this was written thousands of years after Esau lived his life.. and with error proclaim that God hated him before he was even born... that would certainly be without ANY REASON..

That is only 'your' form of reasoning being applied.

There are many Divine Reasonings given in these matters FULLY available for view.

But in the same way GOD ELECTS many to neither see nor hear. Our reasonings are invalid in the face of what is written. Gods Word will not change for any man.

And yet you just stated that God hated Esau before he was born.. and unscriptural claim which certainly props itself upon its own deterministic thinking.

I stated no such thing. Paul himself wrote that matter.

His statement of fact is not changing, though in many ears they only hear what 'they' want to hear that suits them.

s

 

[Webb]

Hi Smaller

Why didn't you answer my post # 41???

Ps.51:5 doesn't say a word ( 0 ) about David's sin did it. But thats what you need to make your theory work.

 

[Eventide]

I stated no such thing. Paul himself wrote that matter.

His statement of fact is not changing, though in many ears they only hear what 'they' want to hear that suits them.

s

Paul did NOT say that God hated Esau before he was born..

ONLY YOU DID smaller.. and now of course rather than admit a simple mistake (which would be noble) you must cling to your original error.. and of course this is to be expected.. as I'm sure you can't even begin to fathom that you're wrong.

Have the last say smaller.. I'm sure you will anyway... it won't change the simple and biblical facts of the matter one iota.

 

[Eventide]

Esau never had it to begin with. Even his 'legal' birthright was spoiled from the womb, Jacob holding fast to his HEEL.

Seriously ET, you have to pay more attention.

Seriously..? Here you're implying that Esau did NOT sell his birthright ?

Why am I not surprised...? Because this is the typical nonsense of deterministic thought.. denying the truth of scripture to hold to your present understanding..

 

[smaller]

Hi Smaller

Why didn't you answer my post # 41???

Ps.51:5 doesn't say a word ( 0 ) about David's sin did it. But thats what you need to make your theory work.

All men are sold under sin the moment they arrive in a flesh body, even one 'under construction.'

That's the way it is.

IF you were 'born righteous' the best thing that could have ever happened would be to KILL you on the spot and GUARANTEE, 100% your 'righteous entry' into HEAVEN.

And unfortunately that is how some demented religious minds twisted beyond measure by false doctrines see things and mothers kill their children to make sure they don't hit the magical age of 'accountability' and reduce their chances of Heaven from 100% down to what? 1%?

How many are righteous?

Answer? No, not ONE.

Your answer? Everyone but babies and mentally impaired people who haven't or can't make sufficient sin decisions to damn themselves. I say such understandings are flat out idiocy and DANGEROUS.

How many seek after God?

Answer? No, not ONE.

How many? How many?

No, not ONE.

Paul taught this matter right out of Psalm 14, and it is SECURE and SURE WORD:

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We 'all' go astray from THE WOMB.

In this way I would see myself not one bit different than Esau and in fact that is what is meant to be shown to us.

s

 

[smaller]

Paul did NOT say that God hated Esau before he was born..

This is how Paul saw the fact and stated the fact.

If you see any differently, too bad. Paul is RIGHT and so is God no matter 'when' that fact was disclosed.

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

ONLY YOU DID smaller.. and now of course rather than admit a simple mistake (which would be noble) you must cling to your original error.. and of course this is to be expected.. as I'm sure you can't even begin to fathom that you're wrong.

Then by all means re-write Paul's fact showing God hated Esau before either of them did good or bad.

Were it simply a matter of 'election' there would be no NEED to actually 'hate' Esau. But God HATED Esau.

Have the last say smaller.. I'm sure you will anyway... it won't change the simple and biblical facts of the matter one iota.

The only fact in play is some insistence that you can't believe your own eyes, and this is not uncommon in the world of theology.

I could cite Paul's statement that All of Israel shall be saved, even ENEMIES of the Gospel and you wouldn't believe your own eyes from that direction either.

Some of your eyes just can't be pleased either direction.

s

 

[Eventide]

This is how Paul saw the fact and stated the fact.

If you see any differently, too bad. Paul is RIGHT and so is God no matter 'when' that fact was disclosed.

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Then by all means re-write Paul's fact showing God hated Esau before either of them did good or bad.

Were it simply a matter of 'election' there would be no NEED to actually 'hate' Esau. But God HATED Esau.

The only fact in play is some insistence that you can't believe your own eyes, and this is not uncommon in the world of theology.

I could cite Paul's statement that All of Israel shall be saved, even ENEMIES of the Gospel and you wouldn't believe your own eyes from that direction either.

Some of your eyes just can't be pleased either direction.

s

I believe everything in the word of God.. and nowhere does Paul write that God hated Esau before he was born, as YOU have claimed.. Paul said clearly that His purpose in ELECTION might stand, that the elder shall serve the younger...

Your understanding of Israel is also flawed imo.. unbelieving Israel right now is not in Christ.. although all of the OT patriarchs who were justified by faith in God are certainly going to be in Christ when He comes... because that's when the resurrection of the dead is going to take place.. and we're going to see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His kingdom.

When He comes..

And Israel as a nation is going to be saved in that Day, the Day of the Lord, the Day of Jesus Christ...

 

[Eventide]

smaller believes that all people are ultimately saved.. even Judas who betrayed him.. because in his deterministic mind there is nothing that could be done about these things.. God preprogrammed everyone to do what they do and that's that.. this is also why he blames the devil for all sin.. as if man is simply some pawn in the whole process.

Deterministic thinking at its finest.. lol

Have at it all..

 

[smaller]

smaller believes that all people are ultimately saved.. even Judas who betrayed him.. because in his deterministic mind there is nothing that could be done about these things..

You are not my spokesperson and you also know that is not an allowable discussion here.

God preprogrammed everyone to do what they do and that's that.. this is also why he blames the devil for all sin.. as if man is simply some pawn in the whole process.

If I see believers saved, where in that is harm to you?

There is in fact NONE. Other than you being pawned.

Try to love believers and they'll still brand you won't they Eventide?

lol

s

 

[smaller]

Your understanding of Israel is also flawed imo.. unbelieving Israel right now is not in Christ.. although all of the OT patriarchs who were justified by faith in God are certainly going to be in Christ when He comes... because that's when the resurrection of the dead is going to take place.. and we're going to see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His kingdom.

When He comes..

And Israel as a nation is going to be saved in that Day, the Day of the Lord, the Day of Jesus Christ...

Again, read Pauls statement. He did not say 'future' enemies of the Gospel. But that is how your own mind reads it.

They are 'present' tense enemies at the time Paul wrote that. But you see only FUTURE. Not only 'are' enemies but also 'made' enemies indicating 'made' as in 'past tense.'

When Paul says they 'are' enemies does ARE indicate FUTURE tense? No.

go figure. Some people can't help but to figure out every way they can to damn somebody.

s