God's Election

[ofthetruth]

Drew said,

"Paul never says that God chose to send Esau to hell"

and,

"how do you transform that into a choice about Esau and his descendents going to hell."


Read the verse Drew,

"the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." (Malachi 1:4)

Malachi 1:4 is in the context of Malachi 1:3 which says "Esau I have hated". Drew, Esau and his descendents are "the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." (Malachi 1:4)
God created Esau for hell. God made the wicked for the day of doom (Proverbs 16:4), and this "wicked" includes Esau and his descendents (Malachi 1:4).

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Romans 9:11)

God Chose to hate the guy (Esau) before he was even born, before he did any good or evil! As for the "purpose of God according to election", do you think "election" only has to do with Jacob and Esau? Read Ephesians 1:3-5, 9. Scroll down on Romans 9, God has MASSES of people (Matthew 7:13) "prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22)! This destruction is an everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Psalm 92:7) that is hell! And God chose to predestain people there apart from anything the people would do (Romans 9:11).


Drew said,

"How do you know this? Please be specific. How do you know that, in addition to making "the older serve the younger", God also decided to send Esau to hell."

God spoke everything into being before it ever happened (Isaiah 46:10). He made Esau and his descendants for the day of doom (Proverbs 16:4/Malachi 1:4)

 

[justvisiting]

Alright, you believe in election. That's fine, as long as you understand that you don't know who they are...God does. How shall they hear unless you preach. (or share the gospel).
BTW, the most prolific writer of the New Testament on Election...was also the greatest evangelist...and no, he was not selective in who he preached too. The foreknowledge of God, is not our knowledge. We are only required to do what He tells us...and that is share the gospel.

 

[mutzrein]

I believe in God's Election too. He's got my vote!

 

[mondar]

Drew said,

"Paul never says that God chose to send Esau to hell"

and,

"how do you transform that into a choice about Esau and his descendents going to hell."


Read the verse Drew,

"the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." (Malachi 1:4)

Malachi 1:4 is in the context of Malachi 1:3 which says "Esau I have hated". Drew, Esau and his descendents are "the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." (Malachi 1:4)
God created Esau for hell. God made the wicked for the day of doom (Proverbs 16:4), and this "wicked" includes Esau and his descendents (Malachi 1:4).

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Romans 9:11)

God Chose to hate the guy (Esau) before he was even born, before he did any good or evil! As for the "purpose of God according to election", do you think "election" only has to do with Jacob and Esau? Read Ephesians 1:3-5, 9. Scroll down on Romans 9, God has MASSES of people (Matthew 7:13) "prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22)! This destruction is an everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Psalm 92:7) that is hell! And God chose to predestain people there apart from anything the people would do (Romans 9:11).

Good post, I only wish to add 2Thes 2:13 to your above references.
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
I dont see the point of anyone denying that election is individual. The above text cannot be national and must be understood as individual election.

I trust you realize that you will be in very thin company of you believe that a specific "race" of people have all been condemned to hell. This seems to be what you are saying.

ofthetruth, Welcome to the "thin company."

 

[Heidi]

Alright, you believe in election. That's fine, as long as you understand that you don't know who they are...God does. How shall they hear unless you preach. (or share the gospel).
BTW, the most prolific writer of the New Testament on Election...was also the greatest evangelist...and no, he was not selective in who he preached too. The foreknowledge of God, is not our knowledge. We are only required to do what He tells us...and that is share the gospel.

We are also required to believe in the one he sent. John 6:29 "For the work of God is this; to believe in the one he sent." That means to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God. Until we do, we're not passing along the correct gospel. Again, only God knows who his elect are but we don't. So we are not to be selective about with whom we share it either. ;)

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

yes i agree election is true amen! But let us be weak to those who do not yet understand this because they can be hard things for people to understand and see until God reveals it to us. I know that for a long time this subject caused me to stumble not being able to see it. Until GOD revealed it to me and gave me peace in it. See His ways in this are so far from our own human ways. When we see these things through the carnal mind they do not make sence and we see all this foolishness. But when the Lord reveals His ways to us His ways there is peace and life in the Spirit. Preaching the gospel to the whole world has a two fold purpose not just one. It is true we do not know who is elect, or called. So we preach to every creature so that those who are elect will come forth in faith. We also preach to every creature so that those who are not called or elect will hear and become responsible and their judgement will be just when it comes because they have heard the truth and are therefore responsible for their sinful life because they have had light shed on them and have no ability to come to Him because of their wickedness. When the aposltes went out they let their peace rest with those who heard and beleived, and when they did not hear and believe they shook the dust(flesh of those people) off of their feet(the gospel of peace). It was a judgement against them and the Lord said it would be better for sodom in that day then for those people because if sodom would have heard they would have repented. I would also like to point out something that is very differnt today then in the bible. When the word was preached to the nations in the gospels and acts the truth was declared and it was said " believe, repent, confess, be baptised" These are COMMANDS not vain words to try to convince people. Paul said:1Cr 2:4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: They preached the truth and displayed the power of the truth and put out the command to believe repent confess. Those who God ordained to life hear that command and respond in obedience because of what God has changed in them, not because of their own free will choice. The apostles commanded with Christs authoirty everything, from belief to healing to miracles etc.. they didnt pray and beg and have unbelief wondering if it was Gods will. As many as are ordained to life will hear the command and comply because that is what formed them for. The rest are found in disobedience.God has purpose for all men, He has purpose for the wicked unto the day of evil, he has purpose for those who come and then fall away and He has purpose for those who endure till the end and bare fruit and are conformed into the iamge of Christ Jesus.

 

[Drew]

Sorry friend, but you have to put all scripture together. Romans 9:11 isn't the only verse in the bible. Good grief.

Were we talking about other texts? No we were not. You still have not made a case that we should ignore what Paul says the election (choice) is about, in regard to Esau, Jacob, and Pharoah, and go with what you say.

Again, read the whole bible to see who Israel is; it's JACOB. God renamed Jacob Israel. He did not rename Esau Israel. do you know why? or not? :gah do you know why the bible is about Jacob's descendants, not Esau's? Or not? Have you even read the OT? :o

I have never denied that Israel is Jacob. I have no idea why you think this is relevant to the fact that you super-impose your ideas on what Paul is saying about Jacob and Esau.

 

[Drew]

Drew said,
"Paul never says that God chose to send Esau to hell"
and,
"how do you transform that into a choice about Esau and his descendents going to hell."
Read the verse Drew,

I have read Romans 9 many times and studied it more deeply than I have studied any chapter in the entire scriptures. There is no verse in Romans 9 that would lead a person to conclude that Esau or his descendents are going to hell. Paul tells us what the choice is about - election means "choice" generally, not "choice unto an eternal destiny. Here is what Paul says, lest the reader forget that Paul is the one who gets to tell us what the choice is all about:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that (Z)God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12It was said to her, "(AA)THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13Just as it is written, "(AB)JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

So what does Paul – not you and not me – have to say in respect to the matter of the “choice†that God has made? It is that “the older will serve the younger, not that “the older will go to hellâ€Â. So why do over-rule Paul and insert your own opinion as to what the choice is about?

I agree that we need to chase up the “Jacob I loves, but Esau I hated†reference and see what its implications are. But you cannot simply assume that because God says “I hated Esau†this, as a statement unto itself, means “I am going to send Esau to hellâ€Â. If you are going to follow that style of argument, why not simply assume “since God hates Esau, He will kill him on the spotâ€Â. Especially since we have already been told what the choice was about - that “Esau would serve Jacobâ€Â. Here is the text that Paul is quoting from:

The (A)oracle of the word of the LORD to (B)Israel through Malachi. 2"I have (C)loved you," says the LORD But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD "Yet I (D)have loved Jacob; 3but I have hated Esau, and I have (E)made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." 4Though Edom says, "We have been (F)beaten down, but we will (G)return and build up the ruins"; thus says the LORD of hosts, "They may (H)build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant (I)forever." 5Your eyes will see this and you will say, "(J)The LORD be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"

Why do you equate the concept of “being indignant forever†against Esau’s people with “sending them all to Hell� Why not go with what Paul is saying. He is saying that the Edomites will serve the Israelites. That, of course, is entirely consistent with the reference to Malachi and the material about God being indignant with the Edomites. Making them subservient to the Israelites is indeed a manifestation of indignance.

And has already been pointed out, we are told that eyes will see this. Will eyes see the Edomites all lining up to enter hell? Of course not. But I tell what eyes can see – eyes can see the working of God in human history so that one nation (Edom) is sub-servient to another (Israel). God works in history and moves nations. Why is it that you seem to think that “its all about sending people to heaven and to hell�

Let’s recap. Paul has said that God has made a choice about Jacob and Esau. I go with what Paul says – that the choice is about the descendents of Esau serving the descendents of Jacob. You ignore what Paul says and insist that it is a choice about eternal destinies. You then appeal to the Malachi reference as if “indignance against a people†equals “send them all to hellâ€Â.

In so doing, you conveniently ignore the fact that the “indignance†statement also works with perfectly well with what Paul has already told us the election was about – the Edomites serving the Israelites. And you ignore the fact that Malachi tells that human eyes will see the manifestation of God’s indignance against the Edomites. And human eyes will not see people going into hell, but they will see the outworking of God’s indignance with the Edomites in this present world – through their political subjugation by the Israelites.

 

[Drew]

God Chose to hate the guy (Esau) before he was even born, before he did any good or evil!

Have I ever denied this? No, I have not. However, I do question why you assume that this "hate" manifests itself in pre-destining Esau to hell, especially, and I cannot emphasize this enough, since Paul tells us what the choice was - that the Edomites would serve the Israelite.

As for the "purpose of God according to election", do you think "election" only has to do with Jacob and Esau? Read Ephesians 1:3-5, 9. Scroll down on Romans 9, God has MASSES of people (Matthew 7:13) "prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22)!

Well, we were not talking about Romans 9:22 or Ephesians. But since you bring them up, I think neither text supports "election of individuals" theology.

 

[Heidi]

it's been explained to you, Drew. Again, you have to know who the children of the promise are, with whom God made his covenant and why, and most importantly, what the covenant is in order to understand Romans 9:11. Actually, God explains that further in the succeeding verses and the previous verses, particularly verses 6-9 that tells us who the real Israel are.

 

[Drew]

I trust you realize that you will be in very thin company of you believe that a specific "race" of people have all been condemned to hell. This seems to be what you are saying.

ofthetruth, Welcome to the "thin company."

Hello mondar: Are you saying that every single genetic descendent of Esau is pre-destined to eternal loss?

 

[Drew]

it's been explained to you, Drew. Again, you have to know who the children of the promise are, with whom God made his covenant and why, and most importantly, what the covenant is in order to understand Romans 9:11. Actually, God explains that further in the succeeding verses and the previous verses, particularly verses 6-9 that tells us who the real Israel are.

Indeed. And it is the "children of the promise" who are "true Israel" - a set of persons marked out by something other than genetics.

How does this truth cause Paul's assertion that "Esau was elected to serve Jacob" to change meaning to "Esau was elected to go to hell".

 

[Heidi]

it's been explained to you, Drew. Again, you have to know who the children of the promise are, with whom God made his covenant and why, and most importantly, what the covenant is in order to understand Romans 9:11. Actually, God explains that further in the succeeding verses and the previous verses, particularly verses 6-9 that tells us who the real Israel are.

Indeed. And it is the "children of the promise" who are "true Israel" - a set of persons marked out by something other than genetics.

How does this truth cause Paul's assertion that "Esau was elected to serve Jacob" to change meaning to "Esau was elected to go to hell".

Do you know what the covenant between Abraham and Isaac was and what it represented?Do you know who the "elect" are and what they are "elected" to? :gah

 

[Drew]

Do you know what the covenant between Abraham and Isaac was and what it represented?Do you know who the "elect" are and what they are "elected" to? :gah

I believe that I do. God entered into covenant with Abraham to undo the taint that Adam has brought to all of humanity. One famous Rabbi has put these words into God's mouth: "I will make Adam, and if he screws up, I will send Abraham to fix it". And that is precisely correct. The primary purpose of the covenant is that God will use Israel as part of His plan to ultimately defeat sin and death on the cross.

The Jew would understand "election" as a national attribute - and that Jew would be correct. Old Testament "election" is all about Israel and her special role to ultimately be a blessing to the world. God "elected" her - chose her if you will, to play this role.

So there is this "corporate" dimension to election. And Paul, coming out of a solidly Jewish mindset, adopts the same corporate concept, arguing that God always planned to have a worldwide family that was not marked out by ethnicity.

Neither Paul, nor any Jew, would have any sense of God electing individuals unto an eternal fate. That is a concept "read in" based on 21st century western individualism.

 

[Heidi]

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

"In him we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding."

Those are the "elect" the real Israel, those chosen before the creation of the world to come to Christ and be adopted as his sons. So the elect are elected for redemption, (heaven) and the non-elect are prepared for destruction as Romans 9:22 explains. Esau was not one of the chosen for redemption because God hated him. It's that simple.

 

[Drew]

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

"In him we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding."

Those are the "elect" the real Israel, those chosen before the creation of the world to come to Christ and be adopted as his sons. So the elect are elected for redemption, (heaven) and the non-elect are prepared for destruction as Romans 9:22 explains. Esau was not one of the chosen for redemption because God hated him. It's that simple.

First, I believe that I am correct in my statements about the nature of "election" in Biblical mindset. In the Old Testament, election is about the nation of Israel. And Paul co-opts that same "national" concept.

But let's talk about Ephesians 1. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument - that Paul is indeed asserting a doctrine of pre-destination. Why do you think that gives you licence to over-rule Paul in Romans 9, where it is clear - from Paul's own words, mind you - that the "election" (choice) he is talking about in respect to Esau, has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal ultimate destiny.

You are basically ignoring what Paul actually says and over-writing it with something else he has said (the stuff from Ephesians 1). Why are you so insistent on not letting Paul tell us what he wants to tell us in the Romans 9 stuff about Esau. I trust you realize that God is permitted to make choices - elections - other than ones about eternal destinies.

 

[Drew]

Paul must be spinning in his grave, thinking these things:

1. I explicitly told my audience what the election of Jacob and Esau was about - it was about one serving the other. Yet, people insist on trumping my claim and overwriting it with a claim about election of individuals to eternal life and to eternal loss.

2. When I brought up Pharoah, I led the reader by the snout to Exodus 9, where it is clear what the election of Pharoah was about - to resist the liberation of the Jews. Yet, people insist on trumping my claim and overwriting it with a claim about election of individuals to eternal life and to eternal loss.

It boggles the mind, frankly.

Disclaimer: I am well aware that there are those who believe that Romans 9 does teach individual election and yet who agree that Paul puts Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah forward as examples of God's choice, but not about choice to eternal fates. On such a view, Paul is building to an ultimate conclusion about election to eternal fates by using examples of election to something else. Fine, that is a position I can deal with.

 

[mondar]

ON ROMANS 9
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
It is interesting how Paul begins the Chapter with both a statement of individual salvation, and that of the national blessing of Israel. The personal consequences of Paul being "anathema from Christ" would not mean his descendants would have to serve Jacob. It would mean Paul would go to hell. Paul begins the whole discussion on a note of personal salvation.

23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
He also speaks of the "riches of his glory" that have been "afore prepared unto glory." So if God is opening up the riches of his glory, the best God can do is give Jacob a few servants? A few servants is the "riches of his glory?" I doubt we have such a small God. The riches of his glory might include salvation, but far exceed personal salvation. It includes learning more of our beloved God through all eternity.

DREW AND N. T. WRIGHT
Drews position comes from N.T.Wright. Wright admits that he is not an exegete. Drew pretends that Wright is doing exegesis. Wright flatly admits he has never even bothered to read the volumes of reformed exegesis on Romans and Galatians before forming his opinions. NTWrights book on Paul begins with the first chapter on his philosophy of isogesis. Wright speaks of the "narrative background of the NT epistles. He believes that you should read "covenant" and "creation" into the NT scriptures. Of course NTWrights position assumes a liberal view of scriptures. NTWright quotes three passages that he feels are the center of his views. One of them is a poem in Colossians 1:15-20. NTWright thinks that this could possibly be an original poem written by Paul. He suggests that the later redactor who wrote Colossians used this poem and inserted it at this point. The "new perspective on Paul" pf NTWright is not exegetical because of its liberal methodology. People like NTWright will pick and choose that which they believe and throw the rest out as "non-Pauline" written by someone later. Then after picking and choosing what is to be accepted, one is to take a few phrases and words that relate to the isogetical themes f covenant and creation that are to be imposed upon the text.

Now there is a certain amount of truth to what NTWright says (but only a little). Many of the points mentioned by Paul have OT narrative background to them. But N T Wright goes far beyond the idea that there are OT narratives that Paul uses to support his argument of justification by faith. NTWright assumes that the OT background is the main point. He does not seem to recognize books have any themes apart from Covenant and Creation.

Drew is a disciple of N T Wright. He will not be doing any honest exegesis of any NT text. Wait and see, he will pathologically relate every passage to certain OT background narratives that are usually minor points of support. Drew will constantly harp on Covenant Community, and that everything in Romans or Galatians is about "Covenant." Oddly enough, I have not heard Drew talk about the other theme N T Wright harps on... "creation."

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This thread speaks of individuals and the process of justification and then glorification. This issue of personal salvation leads right into the discussion of Romans 9. If the Jews rejected this personal salvation, what of their promises? That is Romans 9:6... "not all Israel is Israel." There are "individual" saved Jews that make up the true Israel. The point of Romans 9 is that the true Israel is made up of individual saved Jews.

Well, enough said for now. Gotta run.

 

[Heidi]

The point of Romans 9 is that the true Israel is made up of individual saved Jews.

And Gentiles who are the "elect: Galatians 3:29, "If you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

I've always loved your posts, Mondar and I still do.

 

[Drew]

Wright admits that he is not an exegete.

Nonsense. Please stop with your misrepresentations - do I need to trot your long list of previous untruths? Either you or your source are engaged in either unwitting or intentional distortion. No one who knows anything at all about Wright would make such a claim. Not all agree with him, but no sensible person would say that "Wright is not an exegete"

NTWrights book on Paul begins with the first chapter on his philosophy of isogesis.

More nonsense. You have a history of simply claiming "isogesis" on the part of those whose opinions you do not share.

Wright speaks of the "narrative background of the NT epistles. He believes that you should read "covenant" and "creation" into the NT scriptures.

You continue to bear false witness. You will find nothing in Wright that suggests that "you should read something in". Instead his argument is that the scripture reveal a narrative that needs to be honoured and respected.

And if you want to debate the matter of "covenant" in Romans, for example, I am more than happy to oblige.

Of course NTWrights position assumes a liberal view of scriptures.

You wouldn't be trying to score cheap rhetorical points here, knowing how the word "liberal" is poison to many evangelicals, would you?

Drew is a disciple of N T Wright. He will not be doing any honest exegesis of any NT text. Wait and see, he will pathologically relate every passage to certain OT background narratives that are usually minor points of support.

You continue to apply venomous rhetoric - something I neverdo to other posters. You imply dishonesty and "pathology" on my part. You have no evidence at all for this and you are taking the low road of rhetoric and mud-slinging. Shame on you.