Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[Messenger]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

The post you referred me to talks about how "Through you[Abraham] all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" -- and to me that sounds to me very strongly like it would include people like the Chavin; so where does the opposite idea you are now suddenly talking about, vis: that some nations were never desired to be blessed, come from ?

I suggest just reading Genesis 17:5 as it stands.
Which nations His people are placed in is God's business, not ours.
Also, keep in mind the proper hermeneutic for Bible interpretation is found
in 1 Cor. 2:13. In other words, scripture interprets scripture. Going to outside
sources to assist in understanding Bible Truth only leads to error.
Pray that it may be God's Will to give you understanding in His Word (1 John 5:14).

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion ! - Part 2

I suggest just reading Genesis 17:5 as it stands. Which nations His people are placed in is God's business, not ours. Also, keep in mind the proper hermeneutic for Bible interpretation is found in 1 Cor. 2:13. In other words, scripture interprets scripture. Going to outside sources to assist in understanding Bible Truth only leads to error. Pray that it may be God's Will to give you understanding in His Word (1 John 5:14).

I'm having a hard time believing your response is anything more than sophistry.

The Holy Spirit is with me as well as you; so your remark is both rude and snobbish.
Right there under my photo, to the left, it says "Christian: Yes"

This is a debate forum. Claiming the help of the Holy Spirit via 1Cori and insinuating the disagreement is because others don't have the Holy Spirit sufficiently is not appropriate.

LOGIC is the tool we are supposed to use here to explain our viewpoint -- not personal revelation.

What, exactly, did I take from outside of scripture in order to interpret scripture that's inappropriate?
The indisputable existence of a people, Chavin? ( Not their interpretation of the bible, mind you, but only their indisputable existence ).

I think the Spirit led me to look for them, BUT none the less -- I did use scripture to interpret their existence via logic, not personal revelation.

1Corinthians 2:13 doesn't say one ought not talk about the real world, nor that the Holy Spirit hasn't taught people to see reality as a necessary part of scripture's teaching. The words "Scripture interprets scripture" aren't even found in 1Corinthians 2:13, which shows that you are stretching the scriptures while claiming to read them.

What then, of your own existence? If you are outside of scripture, is scripture somehow a parallel universe that would make anything you say invalid because you are outside of scripture? Does that fact that your words don't appear in scripture automatically make them in "error" ? OR that you speak in English whereas scripture is from Hebrew or Greek?, and therefore you depend on dictionaries and experience from life to understand what English words mean, and all of these helps to understanding scripture are mandatory in the normal persons life, and outside of scirpture? The theif on the cross has true wisdom when it comes to subtle condemnations: "Cant' you see we're under the same sentence?"

The Bottom line: What's your point in terms of a non-hypocritical debate?
eg: Can you please present an argument, not just an empty and subtle condemnation?

1Peter 3:15-16

I could reverse the charges, in any event; for It is you, who seem to be adding meaning and words to scripture without explaining them coherently and logically so that I can understand your argument.

It does not say "all nations" in Timothy, it says "men" ; so how is your assertion that it is really Nations, and then people, and then suddenly -- not every nation -- consistent with scripture and reality?

As for the scripture you suggested:
When I read -- Genesis 17:5 -- *exactly* as it stands -- that passage says nothing about nations NOT being saved, or not being blessed. It is TOTALLY SILENT about the question I'm asking.

I could stretch my understanding to your interpretation if there is some reason to do so; "men" is sometimes a synonym for "nations"; but they are not identical words -- as I have shown contextually.
But you need to explain *WHY* in a clear manner it should be as you say, and we need to have mutual respect to hold such a conversation.

Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

 

[Sparkey]

Time for a deep breath here? I'd like to go back to lurking but the thread is getting a little heated.

Be reminded of the previous (recent) Moderator Posts including post #197 (mine)
Post #191 (reba)
and Post #186 (WIP)

(not necessarily directed at the last to post)

 

[Messenger]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

LOGIC is the tool we are supposed to use here

Man's logic alone can never bring one to truth.
Only the Holy Spirit can open one's eyes to understanding God's Word
(Psalm 25:14, 51:6)

I apologize if you have been offended by my comments, that was not my intention.

I'm having a hard time believing your response is anything more than sophistry. The Holy Spirit is with me; so your remark is both rude and snobbish.

Go in peace!

TGBTG!

 

[About the Son of God]

Man's logic alone can never bring one to truth. Only the Holy Spirit can open one's eyes to understanding God's Word (Psalm 25:14, 51:6) I apologize if you have been offended by my comments, that was not my intention.

Apology accepted, but there's still shallow reflection going on as to the cause of the problem.

For you've implicitly (intentionally or not) repeated the accusation by saying "Man's logic alone"; as if the discussion at hand was not about the word of God, when it clearly was.

Nor do I think the Holy Spirit is the only one who can open a person's eyes to the meaning of the Gospel, for God does send Christians to preach and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and disciples signifies students; not to mention that Jesus himself came to teach.

I hold that study *is* a valid way to learn more about the meaning of the scriptures.

The Holy Spirit may have a decisive role in certain cases of scriptural understanding where people have forgotten something God once revealed, or in moving the heart when a logical, loving, and correct argument is presented, but that doesn't mean he is *always* required to reveal hidden knowledge in every case (John 14:26) -- eg: specifically in the one we are discussing.
This discussion isn't about gnosticism.

I think It's quite possible that we do have enough information to make a reasonable decision that is in fact the "Truth", for the Gospels are written down for our review to see what Jesus did say -- as well as much history concerning the church that can be found inside and corroborated outside of scripture. We have the mind of Jesus.

OTOH:
Personal, subjective revelation, simply can't be the basis of a debating forum, it has to be public revelation and common knowledge. Things that you and I can look at together in scripture and say, "yes, that's true" or "no, that's contradicted." Objective truth is what disagreeing people can share.
It's what I am here both to receive and to share. (camaraderie).

Communication is an art; I'm sorry if I'm making this difficult for you, but we each need to find ways of understanding the other person's position and getting clarification.

If it is inappropriate to use Chavin as an example of a nation -- as you haven't rescinded your remark -- I would like you to show why scripture does not apply to them rather than dictate it being "error" by mere personal judgment.

Does scripture not apply to examples found in reality, but not specifically recorded in it? (& WHY).
Are they not one of the nations from Babel?
Are they not involved with the angels whom are caretakers of people whom God wants to save? ( Hebrews 1:14 ).
What is the flaw in the argument? ( I don't know is a valid answer, if you don't -- and that doesn't mean my argument is automatically "right"; but you can excuse yourself from the argument if need be. )

etc.

There are other places in the forums for discussing personal revelation, and one's movement by the Holy Spirit, etc. But I do get annoyed when these become thoughtless condescending arguments in an apologetics forum which is about defending one's point of view using reason and scripture in demonstrable ways.

now, if you'll excuse me -- I'll finish rubbing my nose back into joint. ;)

 

[Deborah13]

now, if you'll excuse me -- I'll finish rubbing my nose back into joint

LOL, you're tough, you can manage.

I think in looking at post #199, the point was the God told Abram he would be the father of many nations, not all nations. But then when scripture says "all men" that doesn't mean "all men" I am told that it means men from "all nations". But as you see when you point out that there were nations in that "all nations" that went extinct then oppss... "all men" can't be "all nations" just "many nations" from "all nations".
Are you dizzy yet..

Calvin taught that not all men would be called by God. Only some from different nations, races, etc.
It's called anything the God says is His will, will be done. So if God wills that "all men be saved" and some obviously are not then it must not have been God's will for them to be saved.
So any scriptures such as God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that "whosoever" believeth in Him shall be saved (paraphrased), means only those that are the elect, those others just think that they believe in Him.
I'll give you a scriptural teaching from Calvin, I'll try to be completely accurate in a short statement. But you could look it up.
I've been using NIV in end times because it's easier to read so if I can't see anything different from the KJV....

Hebrews 6 NIV
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance.

In John Calvin's commentary on this verse, he said these people were not really saved. They may have thought they were and God may have given them the HS of a short time, or something like that wording, but He took it away because they were not really chosen. So they could not repent.

Well to me that is twisting that scripture pretty badly.

I also read a sermon by Spurgeon, at least he admitted that they were saved. He said, this is from Spurgeon's sermon "Final Perseverance" I quote,

"I. First, then, we answer the question, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE HERE SPOKEN OF? If you read Dr. Gill, Dr. Owen, and almost all the eminent Calvinistic writers, they all of them assert that these persons are not Christians. They say, that enough is said here to represent a man who is a Christian externally, but not enough to give the portrait of a true believer. Now, it strikes me they would not have said this if they had had some doctrine to uphold; for a child, reading this passage, would say, that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that he could have used more explicit terms than there are here. How can a man be said to be enlightened, and to taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, without being a child of God? With all deference to these learned doctors, and I admire and love them all, I humbly conceive that they allowed their judgments to be a little warped when they said that; and I think I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described."
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0075.htm

Did you see what he says about dogma in defending a doctrine. Spurgeon didn't believe in this doctrine that a person must be saved (regenerated) before they could have enough faith to believe and trust for salvation. He thought was ridiculous (his word not mine) and that a man could darn (again, his word not mine) to have faith, believe.

So I guess my point was that when faced with a tough scripture most will dodge in some way. Good luck trying to figure it out, the fight and flight syndrome. I'm sure some would say I have done the same. I'm not much for arguing unless it comes down to real people who will be severally hurt by a certain doctrine.
Sometimes I want to defend the character of God against what I see as horrendous accusations, but who am I to do that. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Freewill religion - Part 2

God did something.

It was amazing.

He's done the same thing with me too.

With me, he has showed me something about myself that I did not myself know. That was what sales people call a deal maker. If a person selling you something can gain insight into what you really, really want? They have a better chance of closing the deal.

So there we have Abram, who meets the Lord and becomes Abraham and there we see that he was sterile. Impotent. Childless. The bible doesn't say that and it may have been the presumed fault of the woman, but in any case think about the psychological implications. That's not an easy thing for a man, nor for a woman either, but in her case, she would be called 'barren'. So behind the scenes we have thoughts that may have occurred to this man, although the Bible does not share this, it is possible, likely even --that there were thoughts such as "What's wrong with me?" buried way down deep where only God could see.

So here comes our Father and we know He is a Master Fisherman and we see the description of a hook that is designed to catch Abraham for life being described, "You will be the father of many nations," spoken in the God-Voice to the man. Was Abraham incredulous? Dumbfounded? Stupified? Did that close the deal? Was God able to hook that fish? He was. I don't know about stupefied, it may be overstatement, but he was at minimum interested and even intrigued. Then, as we read the Lord continue with the man, we hear that the promise includes children as many as the stars and as many as the grains of sand. So the visual is given him.

God has not only hooked the fish, He is reeling Him in. Was Abraham caught for life? He was. God knows his heart even more than he did. We see this, so did Abraham. It was a "convincer".

 

[About the Son of God]

I think in looking at post #199, the point was the God told Abram he would be the father of many nations, not all nations. But then when scripture says "all men" that doesn't mean "all men" I am told that it means men from "all nations". But as you see when you point out that there were nations in that "all nations" that went extinct then oppss... "all men" can't be "all nations" just "many nations" from "all nations". Are you dizzy yet..

Yes, I got the dizzy part very much.

I have been trying to make allowances for the fact that the word "all" generally follows ambiguous grouping rules, and authors often use it loosely to mean a quorum (a representative) of whatever they have in mind, and not necessarily every single member of the group mentioned. It's a word that has to be handled carefully in apologetic.

For example: speaking from my proverbial "glass house" before throwing stones:
Given that Chavin never received the Gospel, I have to accept a working hypothesis for passages like Revelation 7:9-10, where the word "all" was said by John (eg: John of Revelation 1:9-10) who viewed the scene; I take "all" as implying that John did not notice any specific national segregation, (eg: All means indistinction with regard to nation) -- rather than "all" meaning that John took a census, compared every nation on a list, found Chavin, and saw one member from that nation was in heaven or not.

I find the present conversation with SBG57 an messenger very difficult on that account.
eg: For, their apologetic also seems to rest on variations of meaning for the word "all";
So: I really want to honor and respect their valid argumentation whether or not I agree with the conclusion.

And, besides, a good debate uncovers ideas people didn't consider -- and that's one of it's (few) virtues.

If "all men" is stressed, it means at least a group of men of any significance to the author's thought.
If "all men" is stressed, it means a group consisting of whatever the "men" are, eg: nations, ethnicities, warriors, or just men, etc. The particular group being context sensitive.

But these allowances get complicated pretty fast when an opponent's position is actually shifting ; or they inadvertently said something badly....

At the same time, however, I find myself fighting a knee jerk temptation to exacerbate the situation by asserting triumphantly that "all men" means every single man!!! ( and woman, of course. ) which it "COULD" mean; and which would "win" the argument. BUUUUT.... Cheap apologetics, are just landmines for the future and dont' really win anything.

Adrenaline, fight and flight (hit and run???), often cloud ones thinking -- restricting it to the most shallow ideas one has... -- like "ALL" MEANS "ALL" !!!! etc. I take medication to reduce anxiety, shut down panic, and the like; so I really spend a lot of time deciding whether or not what I read is really what is causing the feelings I experience. But I know, when I get the heart rate up -- that it's time to start thinking about things carefully -- even though, that's exactly when the mind wants to quit thinking, and start running or "punchin!".

It's easier to forgive others when I keep my own temptations in mind ; and having a second opinion helps, too.

Besides I also know, that if they try to abuse my honoring of the wider meaning of "all" -- we can always bring up exactly who is meant by "all men" in Romans 5:12; "For all have sinned".

I wonder ... No "T" in tulip ... three point Calvinists, do they exist?

I don't think Calvinists can deny Timothy in an absolute sense, while affirming Romans 5:12 in an absolute sense. The apologetic on "all" cuts both ways.

( Really, consider: For, there is at least one man -- Jesus Christ -- who did not sin; and therefore Romans 5:12 has one exception, and further there is no absolute proof that Enoch and Elijah did sin in any way leading to a reign of death based on those scriptures alone.

Will they still deny "all men" of Timothy? Oh, but I digress... )

Now:
Your quote of Spurgeon was interesting, for I identify with a principle that he placed before me; That he would rather reject his own doctrines, than to deny what he finds in scripture. Yet, such a position -- although very honorable is not going to be easy to carry out in practice, depending on what he actually finds in scripture.

I'm afraid I didn't see the word "dogma" in the linked article, anywhere.
So: Perhaps, I'll come back to that in another post.
But, just looking at the article as context for future thoughts ::

What strikes me most odd is that Spurgeon appears to have noticed a distinction between impossible for man, and impossible for God; and yet, he still came to the conclusion he did concerning the definitive damnation of the man mentioned in that scripture.

For, I think it is far more impossible that Jesus should ever die again, eg: be crucified a second time, than it is that an apostate would repent a second time. And yet Spurgeon doesn't even consider that the absolutist language of the Jew when juxtaposed with a contrary means the reader is to interpolate the idea which agrees with both extremes, but in a reduced way.

No, Spurgeon just takes "impossible" as knee jerk "absolutely impossible", and swallows something even more impossible like it were easy.
( Tongue in cheek: Matthew 23:24 )

BUT: There are some things, however, which are impossible for an evangelist, or "man", that are not impossible with God.

Do you recall the incident with the rich man who obeyed the law from "his youth up" ( In this thread, I started talking about him way back at post #130); Look at the words Jesus says about him: Matthew 19:23-24.

Now, consider the impossibility said of the rich man entering heaven: Matthew 19:26 "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible"

And, again, that word "all" is not "everything" without exception. For, God can not lie; Having no one greater to swear by, he swore by himself to Abraham. Hebrew 6:18; "That by two IMMUTABLE things, in which it was impossible for God to lie.".

Spurgeon, although seemingly (perhaps I over-read him) recognizing that contingent impossibilities exist -- chose to ignore what I would think is an absolute impossibility, to uphold something less impossible.

I'm not sure what to say ; although Spurgeon makes a tremendous number of solid points, he seems to have ignored one that he ought to have known about.

So: I don't think it's entirely impossible for the man to come back to repentance based on Spurgeon's knowledge and reasoning.

The case is for an apostate, eg: a man who began running around saying things like "Jesus Christ GOT what he deserved, the Romans were RIGHT in crucifying him as a criminal." It's not as if "Crucifying him to himself" means that this apostate actually had the power to take the risen Lord and put him to death a second time; for Scripture is clear that Jesus rose, and lives no more to die. Death has no power over him.

It is possible, since Jesus says "what you do to the least of my people, you do to me", that Jesus experiences the death of other Christians, who are precious in his sight; even now. So, that we could read Paul as saying -- that he crucifies Jesus in the other Christians whom this apostate kills; but I don't recall scripture bearing witness to the apostate doing that; and I know that the apostate could not do it to Jesus himself, as he walked the earth 2000+ years ago, being somehow crucified again

You've brought up some very helpful thoughts with Spurgeon, and the notes on Calvin.
There's more to say, but I need to let it settle in my mind for a while and organize my thoughts.
Thank you for your help.

 

[About the Son of God]

My point I think was more to the differences in two Calvinist 5 point TULIPs

OK.
I Got that you were comparing two Calvinists, and that Spurgeon holds that a man can be predestined to life through grace, and then Predestined to damnation. So, One might say a man can be saved temporarily. Whereas Calvin would hold that a man was not really saved at all.

But I searched for the word "Dogma" and "Darn" and couldn't find eitherin the document, so I'm afraid I lost your train of thought somewhere; and that's where I got side-tracked on the content of the link.

And I of course, am wondering if the man is definitively lost forever (he is lost, though -- see 1John 5:16, Matthew 7:6, he isn't one we are commanded to pray for.); for if Calvinist doctrine turns so sharply on the appearance of words without considering the wider context and linguistic marks of the sentences, then many of their conclusions are not built on a solid scriptural foundation but on 14th-20th century linguistic whim. We seem to have lost the idea that Paul, and Hebrew writers, aren't from our centuries, and don't think quite like we do.

So first I think that we would all agree that God is a sovereign God. Ephesians 1:11

OK. Yes, God is sovereign.
He has the supreme power to make the laws of the universe, and enforce them.

The nations, being divided up at the tower of babel -- were dispersed among the angels; and God selected Abraham at his own pleasure, to begin the process of making a nation specifically for himself. And in a reversal of the linguistic dispersal, at Pentecost -- again at God's own pleasure -- he removed the linguistic barrier, and drew men from "all nations" to himself. Acts 2:4-5, Acts 2:7-8

And, that's very abridged...
So, where are you going with the idea?

 

[Deborah13]

You've brought up some very helpful thoughts with Spurgeon, and the notes on Calvin.
There's more to say, but I need to let it settle in my mind for a while.

I'll leave you to ponder those fellows. My point I think was more to the differences in two Calvinist 5 point TULIPs. All through the TULIP didn't come from Calvin himself by a group of men from Calvin's teachings. Spurgeon's testimony of when he actually was saved is quite interesting, too.
So Hebrews 6, I won't even comment on in this thread as to what I believe it is referring to.

I do think that a discussion of the scriptures that speak to the will of God. Your mentioning the 'rich young ruler' made me think of it actually.
So first I think that we would all agree that God is a sovereign God. Ephesians 1:11 Psalms 115:3 . His purpose and plan will be accomplished. Isaiah 46:10-11

God does some things only by His own actions, like Noah's flood, Babel, Sodom, the virgin birth... Other things He accomplishes through man, bringing glory to Himself, preachers, evangelists, disciples spreading His Gospel, and His love. But He also allows man to do things that are contrary to His desires, sin. God allowed Adam to disobey Him even though it was not what God desired God used that fall to bring about His glorification in His Son and revealing His mercy and grace towards man. Genesis 2:16-17
Some Calvinist's theology says that whatever God commands, wills, or even desires will come to pass. It must if He is sovereign. They can't see how God could love some one who may never be saved. They see that this person is an enemy of God and therefore God doesn't love them. Even though scripture says, to bless our enemies and not curse them. Love your neighbor means only the neighbors that are not enemies of God. Mark 10:21 A.W. Pink says in one of his books "We fully believe that he (the rich young ruler) was one of God’s elect, and was saved sometime after his interview with the Lord" because Jesus said he loved him. That's purely by his theology, the Bible never says. Yes the Apostles ask "then who can be saved?" and Jesus responds that all things are possible with God.
I think we could or would have to admit the God's desires are not always accomplished even in the believer. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 If we did these things as stated in this verse, no believer would ever sin. Here are some scriptures that show God's desire for man but man will not, would not, he refused.

The word in the Hebrew is 'abah" Strong's H14, verb, (willing) almost always used with a negative participle.
Exodus 10:27 when God says Pharaoh 'would not'. Psalms 89:11

Hebrew is 'ma'en' Strong's H3985, verb (refuse)
Exodus 7:14 Pharaoh refused. Jeremiah 5:3

Then what about 'choosing' I love this scripture Deuteronomy 30:19 but this one speaks loud and clear, about 'choosing' God, Isaiah 65:12
“When I called, ye did not answer; when I spoke, ye did not hear, but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that in which I delighted not.”
It's very clear in this scripture that God did the calling and the speaking, and they did not do His will "I delighted not".

Greek 'thelo' Strong's G2309 - be willing, desire... not willing...
Matthew 23:27 —“Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them who are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicken under her wings, and ye would not.”

Don't know how much clear that can be. God is willing, but they would not. So God's desires are not always accomplished when He allows man to make choices.
In the sanctification process do we always do the will of God? 1 Thessalonians 5:18 Ephesians 5:17-18
What some Calvinists say is that one can not choose God because man's will is too depraved to be able to do that. But after man is saved he still cannot always do God's will. So God's grace is irresistible for salvation but not for sanctification. That one stumps me. One cannot "will not" for salvation but one can "will not" for sanctification.

Here's a good Hebrew word, chaphets Strong's H2654 - to delight in, take pleasure Ezekiel 18:23
—“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD, and not that he should return from his ways, and live?”
Sounds to me like God does not want men to perish. Does He desire something He takes no pleasure in? Does He desire that men repent? Ezekiel 33:11

Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem, they people who would not. Did He love them? yes Did He desire them to receive Him? yes

How could one not see the grieving heart of God. I believe He grieves for every soul that is lost, the ones who will not.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Prodigal Son - Good choice there!

I like the parable of the prodigal too. He changes his mind and returns to the embrace of His daddy although, at the time, he wasn't sure and dared not even to hope for that. His change of mind came about because of his circumstance and his realization that his current condition (after having left and while he was considered 'dead and lost') was worse than what would befall the lowest servant in his father's house. I'm pretty sure some may want to argue, with a twist on a familiar saying, "Once a son, always a son," but I'm not sure how they might pretend that during the time he was away and while he was acting on his choice to have left, he was not "dead and lost" because the parable itself says he was.

There are a couple other parables that Jesus spoke of in that particular context that were also illustrations to the Scribes and Pharisees (the lost?) concerning a lost sheep and a lost coin. All three speak of the joy that comes when a sinner repents. All three expressed God's disposition and will toward the lost. The prodigal goes beyond that of the coin (who through no fault of its own is lost) or the sheep (who is found in a pit) and speaks about what a son, a person capable of outright rebellion did and how that decision was reflected in his life (he became desirous of pig food). The Prodigal son also addresses the solution to the bad choice - trust God enough to make the good choice and turn back from the consequence which I think came as a shadow and warning. Or just remember the good food you once had. Be glad of the fact that you're alive, that God is seeking for you (like the coin and the sheep), reverse your bad choice and get back to His loving embrace, like the Prodigal.

Teaching that says, "Once a son, always a son," would suggest that he should stay with the pigs? That is not the will of the Father according to the only begotten son, Jesus.

6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.' ... 9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.' ... 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to celebrate. ... 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.'"

 

[Deborah13]

So, where are you going with the idea?

Unless you have a Calvinist that believes that God allows us to choose which is to give up the 'T' as Totally Deprived, I don't see how anything else can change either. Is an unsaved man depraved, sure but is he beyond being able to respond to the drawing of the Father and the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel message, living words from a living God? They would say yes. I would say no. And the way I read Spurgeon, he would say no too, even while claiming to be a 5 pointer. So all I can think is that he had a somewhat different understanding of what irresistible grace is.

So once you've got irresistible grace, it CAN'T be ALL men, as I would simply as a child understand the word ALL.

John Calvin, John Gill and some of the reformer Calvinists taught what some today believe that one must be regenerated (saved) in order to accept salvation.
So if one asks them what must I do to be saved? They would give an answer close to this (actually it's kind of exactly what I believe was said to you a few posts back). 1) Read the Word, 2) seriously consider and apply your mind to the truth, and 3)pray asking the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.

"A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘giving serious application to divine truth,’ and ‘praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.’ The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all."
[respond by Roy Aldrich, 1965 in an article called The Gift of God.

If man is not 'T' and does not always choose God, then God's will is not always done, and grace is not 'I' and ALL can be ALL.

 

[About the Son of God]

I do think that a discussion of the scriptures that speak to the will of God. Your mentioning the 'rich young ruler' made me think of it actually. So first I think that we would all agree that God is a sovereign God. Ephesians 1:11 Psalms 115:3 . His purpose and plan will be accomplished. Isaiah 46:10-11

God is sovereign; yes.
Ephesians has that little problem "all" again... so, I'll set it aside; but agree, yes -- God chose it.

Psalms 115:3 ... Is a response to God withholding his face from Israel on account of their sin, and Israel using the fact that God's name is being maligned as enticement to get him to protect them: "Wherefore should the heathen say, where is now their God?"
But it's a bit of a manipulative Psalm; flattery which is not necessarily entirely objective; for it is an expression of hope and a threat against the enemy. Often, historically, this psalm was said after sin left Israel undefended by God -- and so is ironic, for the sin would not have pleased him in the first place.

His purpose and plan will be accomplished. Isaiah 46:10-11

This is your best quote.

I would have thought Isaiah 46:9 appropriate to include, for "who is like God", references Michael the Archangel; of whom is also a creature.
The angels being variously called "gods" or "sons of God", etc. throughout scriptures (and certain men, such as Moses, too -- KJV: ). God is also known as Lord of "hosts" or "armies" or "angelic legions" )
Psalm 136:2-3, Daniel 2:47, Deuteronomy 10:17, Job 1:6, Matthew 26:53, esp. Joshua 5:14.

These others are not to be understood as true Gods, for this isn't polytheism. They are understood as the rulers of nations, and some are angels, and they are God's appointed and the very people whom other nations vainly worshiped as God. eg: Pharaoh was called God, and vainly worshiped; but Moses, too, was granted permission to use the title, God or Son of God, to do battle with Pharaoh as God's representative; but Moses is obviously NOT God almighty, or omnipotent, and never dared make such a claim, himself.

Exodus 4:15-16 (KJV) and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
And again, more strongly stated (KJV): Psalm 82:6-7

So, setting my excursis aside:

Your quote does reference God's decree of the end/escaton from the start of a war. So this indicates that God has a plan, or sees a way to execute his will to win a war; but doesn't say what that plan is beyond having found an existing man (AKA. bird & carcass eater) from the east, who he knows will do his counsel (Boule in Greek.); So that the "Will" is a very general statement with lots of exceptions possible.

God does some things only by His own actions, like Noah's flood, Babel, Sodom, the virgin birth... Other things He accomplishes through man, bringing glory to Himself, preachers, evangelists, disciples spreading His Gospel, and His love

Yes, although I would put the virgin impregnation and birth as coming through (wo)man; just not independent of God's miraculous power. And, I'd also caution you that angels are very much involved in many of the actions of God's as his "hands" or "voice" so to speak; It's a discussion beyond the thread to tackle the degree of involvement, but see: Luke 1:38 and Mary's belief, Faith, is then cited as why it will be performed. Luke 1:45 -- and the Holy Spirit is the one testifying: Luke 1:41 end of sentence, (So this isn't just woman to woman chit chat....!!!)

But in general, God does make decrees and finds ways of making those decrees come to pass in history.
We are not privy to what degree, always, he directly or indirectly influenced the events. A certain amount of this kind of discussion is inevitably speculative.

But He also allows man to do things that are contrary to His desires, sin. God allowed Adam to disobey Him even though it was not what God desired God used that fall to bring about His glorification in His Son and revealing His mercy and grace towards man. Genesis 2:16-17

God counseled Adam not to eat of the fruit, yes. So the explicit "decree" of God is NO, don't eat the fruit -- but Adam did.

The issue we're facing, and which the Calvinists seemed to have lumped into a single idea without justification AFAIK, is the forceful desire of God vs. a desire constrained by other desires/or permanent actions; where we're not distinguishing them apart -- but sort of focusing only on a certain act of his, generally called "speaking" in Genesis : cf: Genesis 1:3, which absolutely causes an event to happen from nothing, and against nothing. It calls that which is NOT into existence. Such a thing is, I suppose, a "WILL-ACTION-BEING" of God.

This isn't the same as the decree to Adam, or many places in scripture where desire or decree is said.

When I say, "God Can't Lie" -- I'm talking about that act of God where he gives existence to that which is not.
If God could "sleep" and have "nightmares" -- as soon as he cried out, they would become real and no longer nightmares.
If God could open his mouth to utter a "lie" telling someone it was "Real" -- the very act would cause the thing to become real, and hence it would no longer be a lie.
These things are seen to be impossible by their own self-negation.

But, once something exists -- it is true; and such a thing operates by different rules than something which is not (not yet).

Now, God can alternately speak through his angels (messengers), and all the sudden the words are no longer instantly potent. Angels require ratification and permission of some kind.
Many a prophet, too, speaks words of prophecy -- and then we hear the words "maybe God will repent"; and surprise, the prophecy happens in a different way than the literal words first spoken. Nineveh is a good example, for the prophet only waited the 40 days -- but Nineveh does not fall until many years after that. And Jonah was angry because he knew that his words would be partially impotent, for a prophet requires ratification.

Jonah 3:9-3:10,4:1-4:2
1Kings 22:21-22.

So, when you cite things like the prophecy of Isaiah 46:9-11, there is a whole complicated hierarchy of creation involved in carrying out God's "decree".
And ratification is happening at many steps of the process.

It's time for me to stop for the night. Bless you, Deborah, and I'll work my way through the rest of your post as I can; it's helpful. and I see many points of agreement, and some questions.

 

[About the Son of God]

Continuting on....

God allowed Adam to disobey Him even though it was not what God desired God used that fall to bring about His glorification in His Son and revealing His mercy and grace towards man. Genesis 2:16-17

Yes, although it's an open question in my mind at what point in history the birth of a God-man became inevitable.
Prophecy still has a limited dynamic ability, until fully ratified ; which is affected by our freedom of will. (Nineveh, etc.)

I think that once the promise was made to Abraham by Oath, without escape clauses, as to his posterity forever; that we finally had the elements needed to develop a condition where the death of God was a requirement contingent on him failing to keep the promise ( That's the nature of an Oath, If I don't do so and so, then let me die. ).

So I agree with you, and add my view, that In the fullness of time, there was a point where God decided to send his son; so that ultimately the sin of Adam ended in the Glory of Christ ; perhaps after other options had been exhausted. ( Luke 20:9-10, and esp. Luke 20:13 )

With respect to the devil, however, the prophecy had already established from the beginning that he is the one who would be crushed; and so, the mystery Paul speaks of is a surprise -- for the death of God by Oath *simultaneously* leading to salvation, was, I think very unexpected.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Note: The word for "world" is actually "age" (αιωνων) as in the "age" of the Romans, etc. So, don't over-read it as definitively meaning universe or Genesis 1:1.

But, it's still an open question in my mind....

Some Calvinist's theology says that whatever God commands, wills, or even desires will come to pass. It must if He is sovereign. They can't see how God could love some one who may never be saved.

Yes, and this is what I've been alluding to with the "Glory only theology" arguments earlier in the thread.
With regard to this point, SBG57, and messenger, seem rather strongly attached -- as if the assumption itself is undeniable in their mind; and the concept of incomplete prophecy is something beyond their grasp.

I've been waiting for SBG57 to quote and begin some kind of intellectual argument concerning Esau and Jacob, or Pharaoh or whomever they thought best as an example of the predestination to hell; to give them time to build up enough rhetoric, scripture quotes, etc. that I could get a clear view of their personal arguments -- rather than attacking Calvin, or Spurgeon, who messenger or SBG57 might only partially agree with;

I prefer to talk with individuals, and to see if we can reason together; but that's not going to happen, I think.

There have only been a handful of comments in this thread regarding God making man for wrath, and the famous line in Romans about "not talking back!"; which shows that SBG forgot my earlier comment in the thread on that point... which shows that the thread is long, and points being forgotten.

So, I think I'd like to start in on these ideas -- for, Calvinists are free to join in whenever -- and at least from a conversation between you and I -- I might spend some time meditating on God's word fruitfully.

So, to begin:
I'd like to look, just for a moment, at Jacob and Esau.
I'm going to presume that Esau, from our discussion a few posts ago, is one that Calvinists (in your experience) consider damned?

I already mentioned to you about the word "Hate", as found in English bibles, being the translation of a word which often doesn't properly imply malice; eg: in scripture; but often it does indicates a person whom is "loved less", or who is to be "separated/restrained from interaction" (Genesis 26:27, Genesis 29:30-31, etc. ). The usage of "Hate", non maliciously, happens so often, that one can't automatically presuppose it means unbridled, unrestrained malice, or the desire to damn someone.

So, when it comes to predestination, I think Calvinists have focused their attention, and formed their conclusions, on sentences like:

Malachi 1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

But, I don't see where they pay close attention to both what the prophecy was about when it was made, and exactly how it is fulfilled; eg: so that we can determine what this "Hate" is, and exactly to whom it is applied and how. eg: I mean, to trace out it's development in time.

For, Calvinists admit that nations are NOT saved or unsaved by themselves -- yet, when scripture speaks of the election and hate -- look what the actual prophecy -- WHEN IT WAS SPOKEN -- was about:

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.

So, then, how are we to determine if Esau the man was hated to perdition, or only to correction, or if it the Hate is primarily in terms of an arbitrary decision between two sons that had to favor one or the other regardless of their future lives? and also note carefully that whether Esau the nation (Edom) was hated to extinction is a very different question than whether Esau the man was.

For, as Christians, I think we are to neither presume guilt in the child for the father's sin, nor the father for the child's sin [when the father is not directly involved].
cf: Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20;

I'd like to note, but probably set aside, a related issue where the iniquity of a father leads to impurity in the child (sanctification) which does have legal penalties in the old temple system in spite of the passages I just cited. Eg: Ruth the Moabitess' and Boaz' (Rahab the Harlot's line) would not be permitted into certain parts of the temple on account of their pedigree making them unclean, although they weren't allowed to be stoned to death, either.
"Not all sin is deadly" is how I think John the evangelist put it, in one of the epistles.

What are your thoughts (and I realize they may be developing as we dialog) on the prophecy about Esau, and what it means that he was not chosen according to election?
What do you see about God's love for Esau at this time?

 

[Messenger]

Re: Not off topic. This thread has no specific topic !

All Vessels of Mercy shall obtain Mercy Rom 11:32 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief [1 Tim 1:13], that he might have mercy upon all. That means all the Vessels of Mercy, from amongst jews and gentiles.

Yes! Even though God concluded them all in the sin of unbelief (a sin just as any other; Rev. 21:8), yet it was His pleasure and purpose (Isaiah 46:10; Rom. 9:11) to have mercy on them; all His elect remnant (Eph. 2:4-5), and save them from their sin (Titus 2:14); Jew or gentile:

Micah 7:18-20
Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, He will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. (Rom. 9:18; Psalm 2:8, 147:11, 24:6)

It is the Vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction we should understand Ps 73:18 18 Surely thou[Being God] didst set/appoint them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. The purpose of God in creating the reprobate or vessels of wrath, is to show His Wrath against sin, Yes He did show it in the death and Person of Christ, but in this He show it to them outside of Christ, which all would have suffered if not of the Election of Grace. Its to make His Power [right according to Justice] known. God had the right to create some men for a sinful purpose in order to Glorify His Name and Magnify His Grace and Mercy to His Chosen People. All the Vessels of wrath God endures, if He is pleased for them to continue in this life, they remain only to be fitted for destruction, to harden them, and to fill up the measure of their iniquity against God Matt 23:32-33 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?604

Amen!

Proverbs 16:4-5 Jehovah has made all for His purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


TGBTG!

 

[MarkT]

So, to begin:
I'd like to look, just for a moment, at Jacob and Esau.
I'm going to presume that Esau, from our discussion a few posts ago, is one that Calvinists (in your experience) consider damned?

As I already mentioned to you about "Hate" being the translation of a word which often doesn't imply malice; eg: in scripture; but often it does indicate one whom is "loved less", or to "separate/restrain from interaction" (Genesis 26:27, Genesis 29:30-31, etc. ), and that this distinction of non-malicious hate happens so often, that one has can't presuppose it means unbridled, unrestrained malice, like we often think of it in English.

So, when it comes to predestination, Calvinists focus very very strongly on sentences like:
Malachi 1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Roman 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Roman 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

But, I don't see where they pay close attention to both what the prophecy was about and exactly how it is fulfilled; so that we can determine what this "Hate" is, and exactly to whom it is applied and how. I mean, to trace out it's development in time.

For, Calvinists admit that nations are NOT saved or unsaved by themselves -- yet, when scripture speaks of the elder serving the younger, look what the actual prophecy -- WHEN IT WAS SPOKEN -- was about:

Genes 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.

So, then, how are we to determine if Esau the man was hated to perdition, or only to correction; and note carefully that whether Esau the nation (Edom) was hated to extinction is not the same as if Esau the man was.

For neither are we to presume guilt in the child for the father's sin, nor the father for the child's sin when the Father is not present. Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20; That the iniquity of the father can destroy the sanctification of a child is not ruled out; although, as I have tried to make somewhat clear -- sanctification is not the same as justification. Not all sin is deadly, is I think the way John put it....

What are your thoughts on the matter?

As an example, God made both Jacob and Esau, and he declared the elder would serve the younger. Neither one had been born yet and neither one had done anything good or bad to merit a reward or to deserve condemnation. But God loved Jacob and he hated Esau, and he made them to be the fathers of two different peoples. He made Jacob to be the father of the children of the promise, and he made Esau to be the father of those who follow the false Prophet. God knew what he was doing when he made Esau. Knowing the end from the beginning, Esau's descendants would be the followers of the false Prophet.

So the calling does not depend on man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.

God makes them. He makes the wicked for the day of trouble. Is it possible they can turn? I guess. But it doesn't change the fact God makes them for their purpose. Not all men are created equal, despite what we think Jefferson said. All things are made for their purpose. God makes the wicked, for example. He does not make them wicked. He does not make the wicked wicked. He fills the wicked with wrath. He makes them stumble and fall. He destroys their plans. He destroys them like he destroyed Pharaoh.

The Lord knows who his sheep are. Do you think God doesn't know what he is doing when he makes men? He knows the end from the beginning.

 

[savedbygrace57]

messenger

Micah 7:18-20
Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, He will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. (Rom. 9:18; Psalm 2:8, 147:11, 24:6)

Yes, the Elect Gentiles are amongst His Heritage Ps 2:7-8

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance or heritage, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

 

[About the Son of God]

As an example, God made both Jacob and Esau, and he declared the elder would serve the younger. Neither one had been born yet and neither one had done anything good or bad to merit a reward or to deserve condemnation. But God loved Jacob and he hated Esau, and he made them to be the fathers of two different peoples

But what does it mean that he "hated" the man Esau? ( Let's set aside the nation for a moment. )

In a Hebrew household, where a father has a firstborn and a second-born, the firstborn is always to be given a double portion of the inheritance, and the remaining sons were to serve him as something like a chieftan or prince, executor of the family will, etc.
Therefore, I don't see "serving" as some kind of condemnation of being a sinner damned to hell (eg: Jesus chose to serve, too ).

The pattern is true in all Hebrew families of the time; and was later codified into the Mosaic law, esp. denying the father a right to pick a younger firstborn among different wives for this honorary task. Deuteronomy 21:15-16.

The eldest son was given a double portion of wealth in order to be able to take care of the Mother and look out for the younger brothers when the father should die, and this honor and duty came according to birth order.

In the Case of Jacob and Esau, as individuals, one of them had to take the position. There was no wellfare in those days, or insurance, or anything else to care for mother (and sometimes little children) when the father passes away.


Secondly, we have to take into account that God had made another promise; eg: that one made way back in Genesis to Adam and Eve, (Genesis 3:15, and echoed in 1Timothy 2:15), for the promise/prophecy is that ultimately there would be one seed that should crush the serpent....

As brothers, Jacob and Esau couldn't both morally be the father of the same child, by the same woman, so that the promised messiah (the head of the body, the Church) couldn't be fathered by them both in a normal way. The child, itself, first had to come through one of them. And this exclusive selection of fathers continued down to the day of Jesus, for the promise continued through Judah, etc. ( but excluded Onan and Er -- who both die on account of trying to prevent the birth of any children, and would have damned us all if they had succeeded !!!!!! )

What I'm getting at is that some *arbitrary* decisions have to be made, and these decisions would still have had to be exclusive even if future knowledge/prophecy did not have any great evils at all. Nor do I know what "would have happened" if the places of Esau and Jacob had somehow been reversed. But, arbitrarily, one of them had to carry out the firstborn's family duty, and one had to carry on the promise of the messiah.

Given that, now consider that we only really know what the prophecy actually says.
Genesis 25:23.

The struggling in the womb was not on account of illness, but on account of there being two children. And, so she learns incidentally that the the normal but arbitrary line of inheritance was going to be upset by the wrestling children. God does not even say he will force one to come out of the womb first, nor name the children, but only says that whichever child succeeds in coming out first -- that child will serve the one that follows it.

But note! nothing in the original prophecy to the mother would have even suggested that one of her sons was damned. They would fight, and one would be stronger, and God would somehow make the child who succeeds in getting out first, to serve the one who comes out second.
Whoop te do. Big deal (NOT!) except that dad's not going to believe mom's prophecy.

Therefore: I don't think either Esau or Jacob was maliciously hated -- it's just that one of them HAD to do an arbitrary task, and God HAD to arbitrate between these two men as to whom would do the task , because God's promise was involved in every generation with exclusion happening between every pair of brothers.

With that in mind: Now consider critiquing my earlier quote about Leah and Rachel; where scripture says "Leah was hated.", and think about what "hate" actually is in scripture.

Think about it: in terms of salvation history, her being hated is laughable if it is taken to mean malice and wrath. For it is LEAH not Rachel who bore Judah, and Leah is a grand-mother to the messiah, not to mention that the holier tribes (AAron, Levi) are also LEAH's children; and she received all this very willingly through Jacob who is said to have "hated!" her -- ( but obviously loved her in bed ... for Jacob obviously had lots kids with her even after Rachel was in bed too... Genesis 29:30-31)

Leah really takes the whole prize in salvation history! For: Rachel acts like the fornicator and adulterer, who would ironically soil her prize by being busy menstruating on idols she stole from her father, being the first woman to bring idol worship into Israel. Blood sacrifice by bottoms up ... and as usual Rachel protects the idols rather than the idols protecting her....

So... all I can conclude from that word "Hate" is that Leah was loved less by Jacob than was Rachel in a passionate sense. ( Oh! how fleeting is beauty, though! )

But if Jacob really hated Leah, and loved Rachel so much more, in the English sense of Hate -- it's rather inconceivable that Jacob buries Rachel in the dirt on the road to Bethlehem, Ephrata, after she dies in childbirth giving a bad/half despairing name "benoni" to the tribe of Benjamin. ( Paul's tribe. With a notoriety of being nearly exterminated by the rest of Israel as a tribe for heinous sin, later in history).

Jacob never even goes back nor commands anyone to take her bones to the cave at mamre in the promised land where all the patriarchs demanded to be buried. No, nothing for Rachel -- but Leah is there, Abraham Sarah, Isaac Rbekah, and .... Jacob -- but Rachel is left wailing for her children, for they are no more.

So, Hate can show up to be a very shallow word. Hate is more associated with worldly mammon, or fleeting beauty, or especially honor and jealousy for public display, (forced separation), than in substantive differences of the innermost heart leading to damnation; for I simply can't believe Jacob wanted Leah to burn in hell.... although scripture testifies he "hated" her.

So: Let me ask you, and it's somewhat rhetorical/reflection -- but feel free to answer if you want, or to disagree if that suits you:

What does it mean that God Hated Esau???

Was Esau truly blessed or cursed during his life?
Was Esau cut off from the promised land, or did he still enter and leave it freely for as long as he lived?
Is there any sign that God was absolutely merciless to him?
Who took care of Rebekah, the mother, in her old age, was it Esau or Jacob?
Who was forgiving of their brother, Esau or Jacob? Genesis 33:4, Genesis 33:9-10, Genesis 33:16

Now: Nations are not "saved", but they can carry a promise; and since, therefore, the election of a nation is not the same as whether or not an individual goes to heaven or hell ( eg: it's not the nation that is saved with you in it, but rather you that are saved for the nation in the world to come ).

So: I'd like to focus on Esau as an individual separately from the sins of his nation(s).
Consider: Abraham is not damned on account of Hagar, Ishmael, etc. or the sinful nations that come from him (and Edom is one of them...!!!!) Therefore: We can't call Esau damned on account of Edom alone, either.

But: I think -- very, very, clearly, the grace of God came through Esau the man. Not God's wrath, and final cursing -- but his grace and forgiveness. ( cf: Genesis 32:30 with Genesis 33:10. )

So:
Can you show me that God hated Esau the man, in the sense of *wrath*, rather than as a father disciplines his son -- I admit he gave Esau hardship and temptation, and, yes, a permanent loss -- but God also rewarded him for overcoming his own sin and bound him up. ( For example, are not the sheep that Jacob gave Esau, also a gift from God? )

Esau is a hunter, not a shepherd, and if one knows the lands of Seir (which are perhaps also Isaac's, and one of his sons was to inherit them ??) -- who was better suited to Seir? Is it really, then, a curse that Esau was given that land from his father (or God??) ?

What difference, then, does the prophecy make regarding Esau and Jacob, when understood as individuals, when it comes to heaven and hell, as opposed to what it means in terms of a preferential place of sanctity and honor upon the earth, and whether they would get along?

What evidence do we have that Esau is actually damned? What level of Hate can be proven?

 

[MarkT]

As an example, God made both Jacob and Esau, and he declared the elder would serve the younger. Neither one had been born yet and neither one had done anything good or bad to merit a reward or to deserve condemnation. But God loved Jacob and he hated Esau, and he made them to be the fathers of two different peoples

But what does it mean that he "hated" the man Esau? ( Let's set aside the nation for a moment. )

In a Hebrew household, where a father has a firstborn and a second-born, the firstborn is always to be given a double portion of the inheritance, and the remaining sons were to serve him as something like a chieftan or prince, executor of the family will, etc.
Therefore, I don't see "serving" as some kind of condemnation of being a sinner damned to hell (eg: Jesus chose to serve, too ).

The pattern is true in all Hebrew families of the time; and was later codified into the Mosaic law, esp. denying the father a right to pick a younger firstborn among different wives for this honorary task. Deuteronomy 21:15-16.

The eldest son was given a double portion of wealth in order to be able to take care of the Mother and look out for the younger brothers when the father should die, and this honor and duty came according to birth order.

In the Case of Jacob and Esau, as individuals, one of them had to take the position. There was no wellfare in those days, or insurance, or anything else to care for mother (and sometimes little children) when the father passes away.


Secondly, we have to take into account that God had made another promise; eg: that one made way back in Genesis to Adam and Eve, (Genesis 3:15, and echoed in 1Timothy 2:15), for the promise/prophecy is that ultimately there would be one seed that should crush the serpent....

As brothers, Jacob and Esau couldn't both morally be the father of the same child, by the same woman, so that the promised messiah (the head of the body, the Church) couldn't be fathered by them both in a normal way. The child, itself, first had to come through one of them. And this exclusive selection of fathers continued down to the day of Jesus, for the promise continued through Judah, etc. ( but excluded Onan and Er -- who both die on account of trying to prevent the birth of any children, and would have damned us all if they had succeeded !!!!!! )

What I'm getting at is that some *arbitrary* decisions have to be made, and these decisions would still have had to be exclusive even if future knowledge/prophecy did not have any great evils at all. Nor do I know what "would have happened" if the places of Esau and Jacob had somehow been reversed. But, arbitrarily, one of them had to carry out the firstborn's family duty, and one had to carry on the promise of the messiah.

Given that, now consider that we only really know what the prophecy actually says.
Genesis 25:23.

The struggling in the womb was not on account of illness, but on account of there being two children. And, so she learns incidentally that the the normal but arbitrary line of inheritance was going to be upset by the wrestling children. God does not even say he will force one to come out of the womb first, nor name the children, but only says that whichever child succeeds in coming out first -- that child will serve the one that follows it.

But note! nothing in the original prophecy to the mother would have even suggested that one of her sons was damned. They would fight, and one would be stronger, and God would somehow make the child who succeeds in getting out first, to serve the one who comes out second.
Whoop te do. Big deal (NOT!) except that dad's not going to believe mom's prophecy.

Therefore: I don't think either Esau or Jacob was maliciously hated -- it's just that one of them HAD to do an arbitrary task, and God HAD to arbitrate between these two men as to whom would do the task , because God's promise was involved in every generation with exclusion happening between every pair of brothers.

With that in mind: Now consider critiquing my earlier quote about Leah and Rachel; where scripture says "Leah was hated.", and think about what "hate" actually is in scripture.

Think about it: in terms of salvation history, her being hated is laughable if it is taken to mean malice and wrath. For it is LEAH not Rachel who bore Judah, and Leah is a grand-mother to the messiah, not to mention that the holier tribes (AAron, Levi) are also LEAH's children; and she received all this very willingly through Jacob who is said to have "hated!" her -- ( but obviously loved her in bed ... for Jacob obviously had lots kids with her even after Rachel was in bed too... Genesis 29:30-31)

Leah really takes the whole prize in salvation history! For: Rachel acts like the fornicator and adulterer, who would ironically soil her prize by being busy menstruating on idols she stole from her father, being the first woman to bring idol worship into Israel. Blood sacrifice by bottoms up ... and as usual Rachel protects the idols rather than the idols protecting her....

So... all I can conclude from that word "Hate" is that Leah was loved less by Jacob than was Rachel in a passionate sense. ( Oh! how fleeting is beauty, though! )

But if Jacob really hated Leah, and loved Rachel so much more, in the English sense of Hate -- it's rather inconceivable that Jacob buries Rachel in the dirt on the road to Bethlehem, Ephrata, after she dies in childbirth giving a bad/half despairing name "benoni" to the tribe of Benjamin. ( Paul's tribe. With a notoriety of being nearly exterminated by the rest of Israel as a tribe for heinous sin, later in history).

Jacob never even goes back nor commands anyone to take her bones to the cave at mamre in the promised land where all the patriarchs demanded to be buried. No, nothing for Rachel -- but Leah is there, Abraham Sarah, Isaac Rbekah, and .... Jacob -- but Rachel is left wailing for her children, for they are no more.

So, Hate can show up to be a very shallow word. Hate is more associated with worldly mammon, or fleeting beauty, or especially honor and jealousy for public display, (forced separation), than in substantive differences of the innermost heart leading to damnation; for I simply can't believe Jacob wanted Leah to burn in hell.... although scripture testifies he "hated" her.

So: Let me ask you, and it's somewhat rhetorical/reflection -- but feel free to answer if you want, or to disagree if that suits you:

What does it mean that God Hated Esau???

Was Esau truly blessed or cursed during his life?
Was Esau cut off from the promised land, or did he still enter and leave it freely for as long as he lived?
Is there any sign that God was absolutely merciless to him?
Who took care of Rebekah, the mother, in her old age, was it Esau or Jacob?
Who was forgiving of their brother, Esau or Jacob? Genesis 33:4, Genesis 33:9-10, Genesis 33:16

Now: Nations are not "saved", but they can carry a promise; and since, therefore, the election of a nation is not the same as whether or not an individual goes to heaven or hell ( eg: it's not the nation that is saved with you in it, but rather you that are saved for the nation in the world to come ).

So: I'd like to focus on Esau as an individual separately from the sins of his nation(s).
Consider: Abraham is not damned on account of Hagar, Ishmael, etc. or the sinful nations that come from him (and Edom is one of them...!!!!) Therefore: We can't call Esau damned on account of Edom alone, either.

But: I think -- very, very, clearly, the grace of God came through Esau the man. Not God's wrath, and final cursing -- but his grace and forgiveness. ( cf: Genesis 32:30 with Genesis 33:10. )

So:
Can you show me that God hated Esau the man, in the sense of *wrath*, rather than as a father disciplines his son -- I admit he gave Esau hardship and temptation, and, yes, a permanent loss -- but God also rewarded him for overcoming his own sin and bound him up. ( For example, are not the sheep that Jacob gave Esau, also a gift from God? )

Esau is a hunter, not a shepherd, and if one knows the lands of Seir (which are perhaps also Isaac's, and one of his sons was to inherit them ??) -- who was better suited to Seir? Is it really, then, a curse that Esau was given that land from his father (or God??) ?

What difference, then, does the prophecy make regarding Esau and Jacob, when understood as individuals, when it comes to heaven and hell, as opposed to what it means in terms of a preferential place of sanctity and honor upon the earth, and whether they would get along?

What evidence do we have that Esau is actually damned? What level of Hate can be proven?

It says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." So the meaning is right there - hated as opposed to loved. If you understand loved, then you understand hated. Note the severity of God. God hated Esau even before he was born. All do gooders should take note. God will have mercy and compassion on whomever he wills. His calling does not depend on man's will or exertion.

And whose idea was it to kill Jacob? Gen. 27:41,42 God knew Esau from the beginning. He knew what he was doing when he made him. He knew Esau would plan to kill Jacob. But God made Esau for his purpose - to be the father of the people who hate Jacob for taking their heritage and blessings from them.

 

[About the Son of God]

It says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." So the meaning is right there - hated as opposed to loved.

I am asking you to demonstrate what the word itself means.
In the example of Leah and Rachel, what exactly is hatred?

If you understand loved, then you understand hated.

No, I really don't. For, the Calvinists seem to think that hatred means a desire to damn someone, and yet the word itself doesn't appear to have that meaning in much of scripture. Why is this?

Note the severity of God. God hated Esau even before he was born.

Show me something where God demonstrated his hatred to Esau, as in malice; a scripture quote please?
And explain exactly what it is that Esau lost, and how we know it.

It can't find anything that says Esau was damned, sent to perdition, or anything explicit like that.
Rather, I see a line that says Esau sold his right to some land for a bowl of lentils.

All do gooders should take note. God will have mercy and compassion on whomever he wills. His calling does not depend on man's will or exertion.

Fine. His calling to various tasks is in fact, arbitrary.
I agree. I just don't think you know whether or not God had compassion and mercy on Esau as well as hardening Esau at times. It's not like God only does one or the other.

Is not God's temple to be made of "Living stone"?

And whose idea was it to kill Jacob? Gen. 27:41

But he never tried to actually carried it out when he finally got the chance.
and ... We even have clear evidence of Esau's repentance when he weeps and hugs Jacob on the way home.

And far more important,
God wrestled with Jacob the night before that encounter and WOUNDED Jacob so that he could not run away from a fight.

The location he wounded Jacob, is the hip -- the place where any bible study of the word shows a man girds on a sword.
Jacob then names the place "penel" -- the "Face of God", and then says those words "I have lived"; The exact same words said by Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, the ass of a man. Abraham never said anything like that.... and he never tried to force God's hand, but instead spoke with God as a friend.

Jacob then faces his brother in the morning, unable to fight effectively and now unable to run. Yes indeed, God protected Esau from Jacob trying to lay a finger on him.

And realizing God has worked through Esau, Jacob pays his brother restitution even when forgiven, and then says "as if I have seen the face of God."
Esau told him that he had no need of these gifts; but this is the first time that Jacob had to face the guilt of what he did to Esau.

But: Tell me, what reason did Jacob have to strike God? His name is changed to Is - Ra - el. The man who takes advantage of God, the very morning after he does so.
It's terribly Ironic.

For, Jacob already had the promise of blessing through an inheritance he obtained by EXTORTION; Jacob then went beyond dubious legal means to steal a second blessing from his father, a separate blessing none the less, which gave his brother reason to have anger over him.

Genesis 27:36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright [by extortion]; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing [by theft]. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

Did Jacob have some reason to doubt that God would give him the land, if he had bought it fair and square from Esau? Why did he attack God? Is it not so that Jacob could boast of his own works (Even the name Is-Ra-El is a boast about a man is it not????)

Jacob knew what he did was wrong, when he risked a curse, disobeying his Father. His Mother even admits the sin side of it -- but she's shrewed, having heard the prophecy.

Genes 27:12 ... and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.
Genes 27:13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.

Again, whom took care of his mother in her old age? Jacob or Esau?

Why then, did Jacob need to lie to take a blessing, and then why would he wrestle with God to secure a blessing that was already his? Work work work(S)... Can you tell me: Where is Jacob's FAITH, before, as I don't see it until *after* he is punished with a struck hip and left in the hands of Esau, who is merciful.

Jews do not eat of the sinew because of that; indeed, the father's killed the prophets -- the sons build the tombs. The father strikes God, the kids memorialize the wound of the father as if it were unclean.

The name Israel would also come to prove a useless struggle with God over the years; for the nation Israel would tempt God on many occasions and try to force his hand, and ultimately end up at the time of the messiah, with the Jews in Jerusalem believing that God would send them a messiah of military might on account of the prophecies having to be fulfilled at that time and the elimination of Jesus, a candidate for it's fulfillment; and this ended in the fall of Jeusalem and the burning of the temple in 70A.D.

A people who tried to force God's hand, yet again, to give them a blessing that they had already been promised in peace. A people who believed in the fight, and their own boast and power, over the true meaning of the prophecies of the suffering messiah.

God knew Esau from the beginning. He knew what he was doing when he made him. He knew Esau would plan to kill Jacob. But God made Esau for his purpose - to be the father of the people who hate Jacob for taking their heritage from them.

Of course God knew Esau; but you're jumping the judgment gun.
He also knew Jacob so well that he renamed him from trickster into the man who takes advantage of God; a BOASTFUL name about Jacob's WORKS. but consider how often God would use that name in prophecy when he condemned Israel for it's ARROGANCE toward him.

But, regarding murder -- Esau never actually attempted to carry it out.
There have been many people, who I have personally known, that have uttered murderous words; one of whose wives were kissed by force, and who's husband then said "I'm going to KILL him!" -- but then he never did it, once he calmed down; sanity returned.

We have the witness of the scriptures, that Rebekah heard him muttering to himself harsh words that he was going to kill Jacob after his father died. That's no different -- in the heat of the moment he was angry. But a person can say rash words in a moment of justified anger and then repent -- and Esau does have justified anger; but we also have the witness of scripture of his repentance.

For his Father does bless him, with GOD's blessing -- being filled with God's spirit; is this not God's mercy?

Genes 27:39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
Genes 27:40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

Nor are all of Jacob's children saved; in fact, we are told that many of them were cursed every bit as badly as you might think Esau's were.