Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[Sparkey]

Greetings, Async!

Your point is similar to what I addressed when we are talking about broad and narrow views and the danger involved in forming doctrine while considering the Whole Counsel of God. Have you been following along with the side-conversation going on between the several members here? Deborah13 has made quite a few observations and About the Son of God is involved with that, I've interjected and he is tracking along with me too. And I notice that there is another couple "conversational threads" within this thread too. Yours included.

What is this?

It is more than an exercise in the abilities of one man to hold onto and to consider the thoughts of others as well as maintaining perspective to an original train of thought. It is an excursion through the whole word of God. That's something that is rare and difficult too. And to even attempt this while maintaining a presence of mind so as to not get distracted overly? Frankly, I like it when somebody holds their own, when I am received cordially and even warmly. I like it when I am being fed spiritually.

To me? I'd like to buy you and others here a pizza and spring for the check simply because the trade-off for spiritual food, inviting the Holy Spirit to commune with us, is far more valuable than mere pizza, it's the yeast I can do, right?

What would happen if everybody sat down at a meal with the same respect that we learned at our parents dinner table? Some part of me understands and welcomes the fact that we are dining here (eating of the pure word of truth as revealed to others) amongst brothers and at the table of the Lord. We are preparing in each other a meal that is rightly only consumed by Him, one that I think our God is desirous of.

So yes, you are welcome here, and I will look forward to listening to what you say as well as what is said in reply. In the meantime? Here, this one has pepperoni, but if pork offends you, just toss them little things onto my plate. I don't mind. (Said in jest, as I'm pretty sure you know).

Glad you're hear with us.
~Sparrow

PS We are told to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. Each of us may be seen at different parts of that road, some further along than others. It's good to meet each other, greet each other, bless each other in the Name of the Lord as we journey together.

 

[Sparkey]

'Lest there be any fornicator or profane person as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright'

I'll lift up my hand for that one. Yep, I do identify with Esau. I've seen what I've done. It ain't pretty. There is nothing in me that may reply to God should He choose to regard me absent of His Good Intent toward me. I am convicted, found guilty. Pardoned? I hope so. The very idea of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to me causes me shivers. How might a man live up to that one? And yet we are to be holy, because He is holy and utterly apart from all sin. Sanctification begins and continues, I am to walk with no turning, no shadow of doubt and to no longer be a double minded man. Is this possible? It is with God. Thank God.

I'm also closely identified in my heart with Jacob, the Grabber, whose name is changed to Israel. It's personal. The Word of God, to me is highly personal. It searches out the depths of my heart and reaches into the hidden parts. That's part of what convinces me without doubt that God is Godly. That he knows me, shows me and also that He took the care and the time in such a manner so that I might be able to follow.

It's a big picture thing.

 

[Sparkey]

Matth 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. [ eg: It's a deadly sin. damnable. ]
Matth 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift [korban], by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Matth 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

So, a priest claiming that the money he inherited from dad to take care of mom with, is a gift for the priesthood/temple/ and therefore mom dies of starvation, is a damnable priest.

Thanks. It is good to be put in remembrance of this. You've helped me here and I have neglected (put off until later) my studies of the Pauline Epistles, fearing that I would not be able to follow the flow of that very studious man without help.

Appreciated because this too opens the Word of God (or at least helps to) for me.

 

[Drew]

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

Just as no amount of physical riches can buy a person's salvation; neither can salvation be obtained by any spiritual riches, by things a person does or has done, to try and get himself saved (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a rejection of salvation by doing "good works", it is a rejection of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In short, it is a rejection of the idea that only Jews can be saved. I am not, here anyway, going to comment on the sense in which Paul believes / does not believe in salvation that "good works" play a role in salvation; I merely argue that "good works" salvation is not the issue in this particular text.

The material that follows 2:8-10 makes no sense if "good works" are in view in 2:8-10. More specifically, if the justification value of "good works" is being denied, why does Paul use a "therefore" transitional in verse 11 to conclude that the Gentile now has access to the covenant promises (including, of course, final justification) specifically because a dividing line between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved? After all, the dividing line is, of course, not the “good works†line, it is the “works of Law of Moses†line.

Note: I post this and will not debate the point further - I have come to believe that people who post here are simply not in a place where they are open to new ideas. My hope is that this will be helpful to some lurkers who are not alrealy committed to seeing this text in the way it has traditionally been read.

 

[Messenger]

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

Just as no amount of physical riches can buy a person's salvation; neither can salvation be obtained by any spiritual riches, by things a person does or has done, to try and get himself saved (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a rejection of salvation by doing "good works", it is a rejection of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In short, it is a rejection of the idea that only Jews can be saved. I am not, here anyway, going to comment on the sense in which Paul believes / does not believe in salvation that "good works" play a role in salvation; I merely argue that "good works" salvation is not the issue in this particular text.

The material that follows 2:8-10 makes no sense if "good works" are in view in 2:8-10. More specifically, if the justification value of "good works" is being denied, why does Paul use a "therefore" transitional in verse 11 to conclude that the Gentile now has access to the covenant promises (including, of course, final justification) specifically because a dividing line between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved? After all, the dividing line is, of course, not the “good works†line, it is the “works of Law of Moses†line.

Note: I post this and will not debate the point further - I have come to believe that people who post here are simply not in a place where they are open to new ideas. My hope is that this will be helpful to some lurkers who are not alrealy committed to seeing this text in the way it has traditionally been read.

Simply being open to new ideas should never play a role in understanding God's Word unless that new idea can be proven to agree with everything else God has to say about that same subject.
(1 Cor. 2:13)

Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The contrast between grace and works is what is in view, whether the works be ceremonial or moral is not important; but rather that any works, of themselves, cannot contribute in any way to a person becoming saved whether Jew or Gentile; that salvation is strictly by God's Grace alone. Grace plus nothing!

Rom. 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom. 11:5-6 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

It is important to understand that all Christ died for were chosen in Him from everlasting (2 Tim. 1:9) to receive this Grace (Acts 20:24; Eph. 1:4-11); and also His Mercy (Psalm 103:17). Salvation is all God's work! (John 6:29)

John 17:1-2 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him.


TGBTG!

 

[mondar]

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

Just as no amount of physical riches can buy a person's salvation; neither can salvation be obtained by any spiritual riches, by things a person does or has done, to try and get himself saved (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a rejection of salvation by doing "good works",

Rejection of all human works is exactly what that verse is about. The phrase "not of works" supports verse 8 when it says "and that not of yourselves. The concept of "not of yourselves" speaks of any work, not just the works of the Law of Moses.

it is a rejection of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In short, it is a rejection of the idea that only Jews can be saved.

The phrase "works of the law" has no support in the context at all. The Law of Moses is simply not mentioned.

Of course we spoke before and I know how you think already. You make take one would that has some vague association to the Law of Moses and then make the whole context all about the Law of Moses. If the context was about the Law of Moses, it would say so somewhere. Like in Acts 15:1 it is obviously about the Law of Moses because it starts with the concept. Another such context that speaks of the Law of Moses is Galatians 3. It uses the word "works of the Law" in verse 2 and 11. Paul even quotes from the Law in verse 10. When comparing passages that actually do speak of the Law with Ephesians 2, it is obvious that Ephesians 2 is not about the Law of Moses.

I am not, here anyway, going to comment on the sense in which Paul believes / does not believe in salvation that "good works" play a role in salvation; I merely argue that "good works" salvation is not the issue in this particular text.

Well, that statement is misleading, but partially correct. That salvation is not by works is not the main thought, but it is a supporting thought. The main thought is about being "made alive" as opposed to being "dead." Take an English Bible and notice those words. The passage contrasts the life, and nature of people made alive with the attributes and nature of those who are "dead." Of course this death is a spiritual death and the passage is not about physical death.
Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
Eph 2:2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: -
Eph 2:4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

God made us alive, he saved us, he shows grace all for one purpose. That purpose is stated in verse 7. Verse 7 is actually the mountain peak of the context. God made us alive, he saved us, he showed grace, he gave us faith to "show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."
Inserting human good works into the context takes away from Gods demonstration of his exceeding riches of his grace. The whole first two chapters of Ephesians are all about what God has done for us. The concept that we can help ourselves get saved by good works is opposite the context. It is completely foreign to the context.

One of the things in the context of Ephesians 2 that makes any understanding of good works in salvation is in the concept of "dead." A part of being dead is walking according to the prince of the powers of the air (see verse 2). Where is good works there? A part of being dead is living in the lust of our flesh (vs 3). A part of being dead is being part of the "sons of disobedience (vs 2)" A part of being dead is being children of wrath by nature. Where is the ability to do good works anywhere in this context. It is a huge denial of any ability to do good works.

The material that follows 2:8-10 makes no sense if "good works" are in view in 2:8-10. More specifically, if the justification value of "good works" is being denied, why does Paul use a "therefore" transitional in verse 11 to conclude that the Gentile now has access to the covenant promises (including, of course, final justification) specifically because a dividing line between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved? After all, the dividing line is, of course, not the “good works” line, it is the “works of Law of Moses” line.

Your still missing the whole context of Ephesians 2, and do not have the material in verses 11ff correct. By the term "dividing line" I think you are referring to the "middle wall of partition" in verse 14. The middle wall of partition or dividing line is related to verse 12. The differences between Gentiles and Jews are articulated in verse 12. "that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Notice that the differences between the Jews and Gentiles articulated by Paul do not refer to the Law of Moses even in verse 12. Gentiles were not Jews in verse 12 because they were "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise." One of the key terms there is that Gentiles were alienated from the "covenants of promise." It is a far stretch to isolate the term "covenants of promise" and say this relates to the Law of Moses. That of course would not be exegesis.

By the way, the word "therefore" in verse 11 is immediately connected with the words "remember." Paul was calling the Gentiles to remember how hopeless they were not being under the "promise" of God in the covenants. The Law of Moses was not the concern. The sections in verses 11 and following have to do with the earlier comments of Paul on being passively "made alive." He already said how all men are "dead." At least the Jew had a promise of being made alive (see heart circumcision in Deuteronomy 30:6 or the New Covenant of Ezekiel and Jeremiah). The Gentiles did not even have that promise. How then could the Gentiles possibly be "made alive?" Paul answers that question by talking about the "covenants of promise" and how the middle wall of partition was broken down and Gentiles are included into a Jewish promise of being "made alive." Paul is saying that both Jew and Gentile were "made alive" in the "covenants of promise" because of the work of Christ in his death.

The speculation on your part that verse 8 is actually talking about the Works of the Law and allows for human works does not establish the context. Just the opposite. It totally and absolutely destroys the beauty, coherence, and flow of the argumentation of the context. The context is simply not about the Mosaic Law, but it is about the wonder and awe of the promises of God to make us alive. To miss that is tragic. In no way are we made alive and saved by our own good works, but salvation is of the Lord.

Note: I post this and will not debate the point further - I have come to believe that people who post here are simply not in a place where they are open to new ideas. My hope is that this will be helpful to some lurkers who are not alrealy committed to seeing this text in the way it has traditionally been read.[/QUOTE]

Drew, bummer dude, I do not come here much either. Maybe it could have been like old times, but I guess not. Hope your having a good time up north. I also hope you carefully consider the flow and context of Ephesians 1 & 2

 

[mondar]

I see that Roman 9:12 may or may not have included Esau, but Roman 9:13 is definitely about his children.
For: A prophecy about the past is not a prophecy of pre-desitnation; rather is's a prophecy of consequences on the nations.

The supposed prophecy of Hate is something that was said after the person Esau's life was done; not when it had begun.

Hello ABSG (About the Son of God). I think I dropped a conversation with you somewhere else. I have a few thoughts about Romans 9. I did not go back and read much in the thread, but its a long thread. I hope you do not mind me jumping in here.

First, I would be happy to concede that the prophecy of Malachi 1:2-3 is about the nations. However, that is not the question. The question is the context and nature of Romans 9. Romans 9 is not about the prophecies concerning the nations. I is about the nature of Israel. Paul is defining the term Israel in two ways in Romans 9:6. The first time he mentions the term "Israel" he is speaking of a group within genetic Israel in which they are all saved. Not one of them in that group will be lost. The 2nd time Paul uses the term "Israel" in verse 7 he is speaking of national genetic Israel. So then, there is a way in which the passage is talking about individual saved people of Israel. When Paul then uses the term "election" in verse 11, he is speaking of a group that includes only saved people. Then in verse 24, Paul lays down this same principle for Gentiles when he says... "even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?" Of course Gentiles are not called as a nation, but as individuals. There are no national promises to Gentiles, so that cannot be the issue of Romans 9.

The fact that individual salvific election is part of the picture of Romans 9 can be seen in the opening of the context. In verse 3 Paul says... "For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul is obvious speaking of salvation in this verse. Then in verse Paul mentions the "promises." That term is not merely related to national issues, but salvific issues also. The New Covenant was a promise that relates to regeneration and salvation. Then in verse 6 we read... "But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought." The question needs to be asked how the fact that there is an Israel that is 100% as opposed to a Genetic Israel, and the elect Israel demonstrates that the Word of God did not come to nothing. Paul is talking about the fact that some of Israels promises do result in salvation. This relates to Romans 8. How can anyone possibly go through Romans 8 and say that it does not relate to individual salvation? Paul is still on the idea of salvation in Chapter 9 (see especially verse 3).

So then, when Paul gets to verse 13, he is not speaking of the context of Malachi 1, but he is using a national prophecy in Malachi to point to God's personal elective hatred of Esau. This does not mean that God does not have another kind of love for Esau, but that is not an elective love.
As an illustration of different kinds of love---- I love my wife. I might even say I love your wife because I want to show love toward all mankind. However, when it comes to the subject of choosing a marriage partner, I love my wife alone and no other. When it comes to a marriage partner I hate all other women and do not choose them. So then, I can say in a way, I hate your wife, even though in another way, I already said I love your wife.

God's love for his elect is the same way. He chooses to make them holy, but he does not choose to make others holy. In fact, those whom God did not choose to make holy (beginning with salvation) he reprobates. He hardens their hearts like he did to Pharaoh. So then, the love of God can be spoken of in different ways in the scriptures, but so can his hatred. Romans 9 speaks of his elective love for Jacob and his elective hatred for Esau as persons. This election took place in eternity past (Ephesians 1:4).

In your post, you mentioned that the prophecy came after the conception of the twins. That is true. But the election of Jacob, and rejection of Esau, was it based upon who they were? or what God knew they would do? If you say that God foreknew what they would do and so elected them, or their nations, how then do you read verse 11. Election is not based upon anything related to what Esau did that was bad, or that Jacob did that was good. God's election is based only upon himself. I think the issue of conditional or unconditional election is huge in verse 11. If election is conditioned upon God peering into the future and seeing something he wanted to choose, then it is not based in himself. Verse 11 allows for only unconditional election. Also, if the issue of the context concerned only the election of nations, then verse 11 would not speak of Jacob and Esau, but Israel and Edom.

 

[About the Son of God]

Hi Asyncritus,


So far, you seem to be like a "heavyweight" of the opposing argument, and the one really forcing me to think things through.
Blessings.

As I said earlier on, if I'm going to error, I prefer to error on the side of mercy, although let me add now that I'm not Erroring so as to set aside justice.
Jesus says: "Vengeance is mine".

You propose what you think is a decisive verse, but let's see if it is:
For just skimming your verse, I see it says "Meat", as in "idol meat" maybe? but in the actual verses from the old testament it says "red pottage" NOT meat.

Not only that, but in the SAME book of Hebrews, it says:

Hebrews 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

So, we have contradiction, Therefore you really only need to work out HOW Esau (the man) was cursed...
But as for Me: I think there are two blessings, and will try to show it very strongly.

I am not certain I shall win this argument. But either way, I shall learn, and shall exercise my mind, and add to the treasury of my heart. If you overcome me, I will have something to treasure as well.

Under the law, and I include Genesis as well as Moses (Torah), a sin worthy of death must have two agreeing witnesses; or a third if they do not agree. A pattern of sins might establish multiple witnesses... I think....
That's your burden... prove that the passage means a sin worthy of death to Esau (the MAN), and which is also carried out,

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance [facile], but judge righteous judgment. [ thorough, eg: beyond a reasonable doubt ]

By this, I mean, there could be any number of disagreeing witnesses -- but at least TWO must agree to the sins in full, and the sins must be serious ; and then we have to reasonably show that God did not have mercy on the man according to salvation -- not just physical land, and priesthood. ( see previous post on Levi vs. Judah ).

So, now:
Jesus says, where two or three are gathered in my name; there I am in their midst.
And again, 1Corinthians 14:29, again 2Corinthians 13:1, and again 1Timothy 5:19 (elder=presbuteros/presbyter), and again Hebrew 10:28, and again Matthew 18:16-19.

So: Let's examine some witnessing to see the difference between "one" witnesses' and "two" or more.

In the Old testament, when God (or his angels/messengers) came to see for himself what Sodom was doing; Notice that Three "men/males" were sent by God, although only one seems to have gone in to actually see Abraham, eg: really --- I'm Just reading the English, KJV. and the pronouns....

First, this heavenly visitor begins a conversation and he witnesses what Abraham and Sarah do.

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?
and
Genesis 18:15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

There was only one witness; so no conviction comes of that kind of thing.
Then the witnessing to do judgment moves on to the house of Sodom.

In the case of Sodom, though, God had already heard the cry against them (1 witness) and so went to see if all that was said was true (2 or 3 witnesses).

Genesis 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry [1] of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Genesis 18:21 I will go down now, and see [2] whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Sodom, as a people, could not be acquitted, because there were two credible witnesses and not enough prayer to save all of them by Abraham. (Although God did spare Lot who was part of the city, and even his daughters who had learned the vice of Sodom )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when examining the sin, with no Judgment to perdition explicitly WRITTEN; we need to find agreement of more than one witness.

That is the principle of decide if someone has evidence that another is damned.
I think the same is necessary for any Doctrine supposedly based on scripture alone.

Let's revisit the issue of what actually happened at the blessing

The first time, Jacob putatively ([1] witness only) lied and said "I am Esau": Genesis 27:19
The second time Jacob was asked his name, but he perhaps said "YHWH" (I AM): Genesis 27:24 ?? (check that)

So, the two witnesses Jacob made don't really QUITE agree; and perhaps Jacob was invoking an Oath?

But, then there's a third witness called to break the tie:
Isaac felt his son, HIMSELF, and found Jacob to be Hairy: Genesis 27:23

But consider what Isaac's said: "The Voice is Jacobs voice, but the but the Hands are Esau's hands"
So, what does this witness of the father prove?
No curse. by witnesses, Isaac's fine....

Buuuuut ... Isn't it interesting that a people can be blessed from afar, like Balaam did from the top of a mountain ?

Numbers 23:9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.

So: as a question for the forum were in -- where exactly was Esau during the blessing, as in How far away? The distance from a hilltop to a valley? I vote for *much* less....

Genes 27:30 And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.

Right THEN, at THAT moment.... So we have another witness... And don't even bother saying that a blind father had to SEE the son in order to bless him. Or Jacob didn't get blessed either.
:tongue

So, my first question -- Can a man receive the SAME blessing twice? Or if he begs for ANOTHER blessing, wouldn't he get a lesser one?

'Lest there be any fornicator or profane person as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright' That is about as individual as you can get, I would suppose.

You're quoting Hebrews 12:16.
So, it's not quite in the same vein of thought as Romans 9 ; and it is written specifically to the Hebrews, and perhaps by a Christian who heard the witness from the other apostles.... (Hebrews 2:3) .... hmmm... many would have to deny it is Paul, if they believe Paul hears directly and only from God on doctrine...

But, I take it you are trying to use it as a witness against Esau's salvation ?
So, how many witnesses do you have ?

I'm just using the KJV, right now, not peeking at the Greek or Hebrew... ( Hebrews was quite possibly written in Hebrew, so the Greek may not be the original text... and therefore we may only have a translation of what it actually said ... The P.e.s.h.i.t.t.a. bible, might be another witness you can use, if you need it; the language is semitic and ancient. )

So: first establish if it is porridge, pottage, or meat ; for I think the witness of the KJV in the OT, is that it was "pottage".
Genesis 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
And, in the NT, it says:

Witness #1
Hebrews 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
Hebrews 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Witness #2
Hebrews 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come

These two witnesses don't agree...
So how might they harmonize, some of these are likeley wrong but I'm just working the problem out...
There could be multiple birthrights, one for the firstborn, one for the other child....
Now maybe, meat COULD be pottage ? But that's not certain to me, so we need another witness....
Meat sounds more like, the thing offered in Edom's children's temples to idols. It doesn't say red, either, and where is "morsel" quoted from?
a "morsel" means a "piece" not a bunch of mush like lentil soup... (pottage is smashed beans).

Some Possibilities: (Maybe there are better ones.)
1) There has to be at LEAST a few translation mistakes or manuscript errors in this sentence
2) It's only meant as a *weak* analogy -- for the Holy Spirit when inspiring the words seems to have made it very suggestive, but not precise enough to be used in court.. If salvation is equated to "promised" land, then loss of land is being damned...??

Oh, and more importantly: Can you determine some evidence that buying / exchanging another's birthright is a sin worthy of death or not, eg: I'd like to make sure that Jacob can be exonerated, for OTHERWISE Jacob did exactly what Simon the sorcerer did and which is worthy of death...

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Acts 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

So: I don't see that Jacob paid for a blessing... or else BOTH Jacob and Esau are in danger of deadly sin.

I'm sure the sale was displeasing to God -- but I simply CAN'T see clearly that it damned either one of them...

Therefore, I see this: They were two brothers, and only one got the firstborn birthright -- but that simply doesn't make the other damned, in and of itself.

So, what difference does it actually make to final salvation that Esau despised the land on Earth and the priesthood, and gave it to another person who had the promise coming, and got a different birthright from God instead ?

Why could not Jacob act as the priest of the family, if it is indeed transferable, and Esau receive Jacob's old place?
I am pretty certain that Seir was given to Esau by God, I think.

Deuteronomy 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.
Hebre 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

( Isn't it interesting how Esau complains about Jacob at the Trial in front of Isaac, saying he usurped me these TWO times. )

As to "fornication" -- the word is "pornos" (Assuming the Greek is accurate ) -- from which we get the idea "Hard porn" or "pornography".
I don't recall Esau fornicating sexually with any woman, but he did 'marry' more than one woman. I might have missed it...
But where is the word 'fornication' used in the OT as something Esau the man did? (I'm not saying it isn't there.)

I think porn refers to any kind of sexual perversion, with idols, false worship with meat, sexual relations when a woman is menstruating....
So, if Rachel bled on idols, and brought them with her to Israel -- I think that's a solid example of porn, too.

----------------------------------------------------

Right after mentioning the two brothers, Jacob and Esau, Paul in Romans 9 said "mercy,mercy, compassion,compassion"
Romans 9:15 -- mercy for Jacob, and compasion for Esau as far as I can see ; though not EQUAL mercies and compassion.

So: I simply don't see a conviction of Esau yet. :dunno
John 7:24

I also think, St. Paul WAS a bad model for Christians at one time eg: a murderer. And I don't mean someone who contemplated it in a rash moment, like Esau, but one who actually gave legal consent to their death.

Christians need to remember:

A person who bears false witness of a crime worthy of death on another person, is liable to be judged worthy of death themselves.
eg: Jesus says: Whatever you do to the least of my people, you do it to me.
and: Judge not lest you be judged, by the same measure.

 

[MarkT]

It's just work. We did not do any work for God that we should look at salvation as a reward or a wage. Salvation was a gift.

How many of you were looking for salvation? Heck. You did not even know about salvation until somebody told you or you read the Bible. And don't tell me you chose it. Can a blind man choose what he can not see? The fact is you did not find God's word. God's word found you. And don't tell me you can reject his gift, you ungrateful children. Don't say in your heart, 'there is no God. I can reject him.' This comes from an evil heart, and God will reject you. Don't tempt God.

 

[Sparkey]

It's just work.

Here is a snip from something posted elsewhere on this website:

So we see that faith is a free gift from God and comes to us at our salvation (Rom 5:1 and Rom 4:5). In Acts 14:27 we read that Jesus had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles meaning that salvation was now freely available to all through Christ. In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, "... Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead."

This word, in the Greek is like a verb and could read " ... having faithed to all men ...†When God gives faith to people, He faiths to us the absoluteness of the truth of Christ.

Check the wording for me, if you like. It could also read "is faithing to all men" ?? Greek tense for verbs do not translate well for me.

 

[MarkT]

It's just work.

Here is a snip from something posted elsewhere on this website:

So we see that faith is a free gift from God and comes to us at our salvation (Rom 5:1 and Rom 4:5). In Acts 14:27 we read that Jesus had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles meaning that salvation was now freely available to all through Christ. In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, "... Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead."

This word, in the Greek is like a verb and could read " ... having faithed to all men ...” When God gives faith to people, He faiths to us the absoluteness of the truth of Christ.

Check the wording for me, if you like. It could also read "is faithing to all men" ?? Greek tense for verbs do not translate well for me.

First let me say my piece.

God can not be tempted. True. But we will answer for every careless word. If you can reject God, prove it!

Does it not say 'wisdom will enter your heart.'?

Go ahead. Tell 'wisdom' to get lost; 'No, 'wisdom', don't enter my heart. I don't want knowledge. I don't want to understand.' Aren't these words the words of a fool?

It's not a choice. Wisdom will enter your heart, if you receive the words of the LORD, if you treasure up his commandments, if you are attentive to wisdom, if you incline your heart to understanding, if you store up the words of the LORD, if you love knowledge, if you fear the LORD.

 

[Sparkey]

First let me say my piece.

Okay.

God can not be tempted. True. But we will answer for every careless word. If you can reject God, prove it!

I can, but I think it wiser if I decline the challenge. If you tempt me sufficiently such that I jeopardize my standing with God, maybe I will? No, I think it's better if I don't.

Does it not say 'wisdom will enter your heart.'?

Go ahead. Tell 'wisdom' to get lost; 'No, 'wisdom', don't enter my heart. I don't want knowledge. I don't want to understand.' Aren't these words the words of a fool?

Let's look. I remember something that God has said about this very thing.

Open your bible to Proverbs. Turn to chapter 6 and examine the personifications of Wisdom and Folly. I meant chapter 9
Here's the verses: Proverbs 9:1-6, 13-18

Looking there we have a chiasm:

A. Lady Wisdom (9:1-6)

B. Response to wisdom: the wise man and the scoffer (9:7-9)

C. The foundation of wisdom (9:10-11)​

B. Consequences of response: the wise man and the scoffer (9:12)​

A. Woman Folly (9:13-18)

You've asked to be allowed to say your piece. I would have prefered that you had said, "Let me say my peace."

Do you have more?

 

[MarkT]

It's just work.

Here is a snip from something posted elsewhere on this website:

So we see that faith is a free gift from God and comes to us at our salvation (Rom 5:1 and Rom 4:5). In Acts 14:27 we read that Jesus had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles meaning that salvation was now freely available to all through Christ. In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, "... Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead."

This word, in the Greek is like a verb and could read " ... having faithed to all men ...” When God gives faith to people, He faiths to us the absoluteness of the truth of Christ.

Check the wording for me, if you like. It could also read "is faithing to all men" ?? Greek tense for verbs do not translate well for me.

I'm not sure what you are asking. The free gift is eternal life - 'For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

That's okay, Mark. I'm not really sure I was asking anything. I agree with most of what I hear you say. All the work that will last ultimately originates and culminates with God. He is the author and the finisher of our Faith. I had nothing to do with the free gift of the Sacrificial Lamb of God except to accept the free gift. That is not to say that God is not generous and marvelous and that you are not allowed your part in the building of the faith, even the faith in me. Paul admonishes that this very principle is to be kept at heart, that we edify each other or build each other up.

But if I were to come along and smack you on the back and say, "What a good fellow you are," out of my own sense of things? What good is that to you. If, on the other hand, you saw me in a pickle and struggling and you had compassion and offered me a helping hand and maybe some wisdom to take along the way? Well, who are you? You are acting like your Father, about your Father's work.

I don't think we really disagree here.

 

[MarkT]

Okay.



I can, but I think it wiser if I decline the challenge. If you tempt me sufficiently such that I jeopardize my standing with God, maybe I will? No, I think it's better if I don't.



Let's look. I remember something that God has said about this very thing.

Open your bible to Proverbs. Turn to chapter 6 and examine the personifications of Wisdom and Folly. I meant chapter 9
Here's the verses: Proverbs 9:1-6, 13-18

Looking there we have a chiasm:

A. Lady Wisdom (9:1-6)

B. Response to wisdom: the wise man and the scoffer (9:7-9)

C. The foundation of wisdom (9:10-11)​

B. Consequences of response: the wise man and the scoffer (9:12)​

A. Woman Folly (9:13-18)

You've asked to be allowed to say your piece. I would have prefered that you had said, "Let me say my peace."

Do you have more?

Make it peace then.

I know the proverbs. But you're not making yourself very clear. Do you mean you can but it wouldn't be wise to reject God?

You can't serve two masters.

You think I'm tempting you? With what? How am I tempting you? I'm just saying we will answer for every careless word. So prove yourself to God. Not me.

I retract this for your sake. No need to prove it.

 

[Sparkey]

You can't serve two masters.

You think I'm tempting you? With what? How am I tempting you? I'm just saying we will answer for every careless word. So prove yourself to God. Not me. I'm not interested.

There are several passages that we could use to club each other with but I'm really not interested in fighting with you. As far as "proving myself to God" goes? We are all instructed thus: Phil 2:12 agrees with you! That quote doesn't say, "Do it in front of me," but instead says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."

When we are speaking about our obedience as a way to accomplish what you admonish, that we "prove ourselves to God" we are speaking in accord to the words that were spoken between those who had the mind of Christ and loved each other. So if even for a second you say, "I don't care," I personally think that you do. Why else would you struggle to communicate the Word of Truth to me? It's a good thing to speak the good news, blessed are the feet of them who do so. Mark, your feet can be blessed. Remember the whole armor of God? We are told to put it on and to wear it and that includes our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace. Our shield of Faith is critical too. That prevents those fiery darts, right?

Again, we might not yet speak the exact same words, so that others rise, astonished, saying, "Behold! A nation, born in a day," and "They speak the same things," but I suspect that you know where the road we are traveling together on leads.

 

[MarkT]

If it came down to a perfect understanding, I suppose no one would be saved. Fortunately it doesn't. God knows.

 

[Sparkey]

Indeed He does. And His Spirit whispers to us. We get to meet and greet each other along the way. We're told to greet each other with an holy kiss. I'm not sure about that one, having only tried it once, with my son who is also a Christian, but I do understand the spirit of it.

Blessings to you, brother, Son of God. By faith, I call you this, even though according to sight, the title is "son of God in the making." Faith in you? Maybe, some. We don't know each other that well. Faith in your Father in heaven? Absolutely, brother. Right? I really do trust him for you. Also, if you are inclined to, I'd ask that you remember me and mine in your prayers.

~Sparrow

 

[MarkT]

You can't serve two masters.

You think I'm tempting you? With what? How am I tempting you? I'm just saying we will answer for every careless word. So prove yourself to God. Not me. I'm not interested.

There are several passages that we could use to club each other with but I'm really not interested in fighting with you. As far as "proving myself to God" goes? We are all instructed thus: Phil 2:12 agrees with you! That quote doesn't say, "Do it in front of me," but instead says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."

When we are speaking about our obedience as a way to accomplish what you admonish, that we "prove ourselves to God" we are speaking in accord to the words that were spoken between those who had the mind of Christ and loved each other. So if even for a second you say, "I don't care," I personally think that you do. Why else would you struggle to communicate the Word of Truth to me? It's a good thing to speak the good news, blessed are the feet of them who do so. Mark, your feet can be blessed. Remember the whole armor of God? We are told to put it on and to wear it and that includes our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace. Our shield of Faith is critical too. That prevents those fiery darts, right?

Again, we might not yet speak the exact same words, so that others rise, astonished, saying, "Behold! A nation, born in a day," and "They speak the same things," but I suspect that you know where the road we are traveling together on leads.

What can I say? You know me well.

 

[Sparkey]

What can I say? You know me well.

Here's more:

Give ear and hear my voice, Listen and hear my speech.

Does the plowman keep plowing all day to sow? Does he keep turning his soil and breaking the clods? When he has leveled its surface, Does he not sow the black cummin And scatter the cummin, Plant the wheat in rows, The barley in the appointed place, And the spelt in its place? For He instructs him in right judgment, His God teaches him.

For the black cummin is not threshed with a threshing sledge, Nor is a cartwheel rolled over the cummin; But the black cummin is beaten out with a stick, And the cummin with a rod.​

Bread [flour] must be ground; Therefore he does not thresh it forever, Break [it with] his cartwheel, Or crush it [with] his horsemen.​

This also comes from the LORD of hosts, [Who] is wonderful in counsel [and] excellent in guidance.

You've heard that we are to become fishers of men. And I say that it is okay to till the soil; there is much wisdom to be learned. Or do you think that he was speaking of wheat? He speaks of us. Now how we are to learn to do the Will of God, to partake in His nature and to strive for peace. How may we prove ourselves to God?

Here is the specific blessing that I ask for you, sir: That the Lord make His peace to inhabit you, that we become more and more his slaves, even as we work together and strive for the unity of the faith that is His, even as we are.

:amen