What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jacob I loved, Esau I hated

J

JM

Member
The passage reads:
Rom 9:13 “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.â€Â

Reason why Jacob was loved:
Rom 9:11 “that the purpose of God according to election might standâ€Â

Reason why Esau was hated:
Rom 9:11 “that the purpose of God according to election might standâ€Â

Timing of election:
Rom 9:11 “For the children being not yet bornâ€Â

Based on decree [and not God foreseeing the future]:
Rom 9:11 “neither having done any good or evilâ€Â

God’s election is based upon His purpose and not on anything we do [neither having done any good or evil]. Faith is a good thing, we all agree, but election was made for God’s purpose before we did a good work of faith.
 
good point.
Do I understand it? Not really. Can I accept it? If I so choose then yes I can.

The "predestination"/"man's will" ideas are both scripturally sound doctrines. Since both are taught in scripture then both are true. How can this be so? I don't know. But I've choosen to accept the fact that both are right. Either way, the result is the same. The fruit is identical. The seed is planted, the seed is watered and God gives the increase. Interpret that as you will but all I know is without God the planted seed will not grow.
 
PotLuck, consider the following:

R. L. Dabney: A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]).

Cornelius Van Til: It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).
 
True. And one must believe there is a contradiction in the first place and I do not.
 
PotLuck said:
True. But one must believe there is a contradiction in the first place and I do not.
Click to expand...

For a contradiction to exist, do you first have to believe it does exist?
 
The existance of contradiction is made under the assumption there is one in the first place. Even if I believe a contradiction exists that doesn't mean it does.
 
A defense attorney will pursue his case with the assumption his client is innocent. The prosecutor will pursue his case with the opposite assumption. In all debate, research of any kind or study thereof there must first be an assumption made or there is no reason to pursue the effort.
 
Going further:
During the search for evidence in debate, reaseach, trial or study we go where we are most likely to find what we're looking for. Evidence that does not support our intitial assumption is either ignored, tossed or in most cases overlooked simply because that is not our focus.
So if one cares to debate predestination or man's will scripture provides evidence for both. What we should be looking for is a means to reconcile the two.
But then, that means the assumption must first be made there is no contradiction in the first place doesn't it?
:-D
 
JM said:
Hence the quote from Dabney and VanTil. ;-)
Click to expand...

I may not have gotten the true meaning out of those quotes since I'm not sure what the point was.... in layman's terms. :oops:
lol
:D
 
During the search for evidence in debate, reaseach, trial or study we go where we are most likely to find what we're looking for. Evidence that does not support our intitial assumption is either ignored, tossed or in most cases overlooked simply because that is not our focus.
Click to expand...

We can apply that thinking to you conclusion as well, and say you ignore the evidence because it's not what you're looking for, and you're not able to see the contradiction. We are left with a form of relitivism.

So if one cares to debate predestination or man's will scripture provides evidence for both.
Click to expand...

One will break down in consistency if you follow it to it's logical conclusion. "...but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction."

What we should be looking for is a means to reconcile the two.
Click to expand...

I believe the Bible does reconcile the two ideas.

But then, that means the assumption must first be made there is no contradiction in the first place doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The idea behind VanTillian thought is to follow all the evidence to it's conclusion, root up your presuppositions and you're left with two ideas that oppose each other. One is consistent with the way in which the world opperates "...we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true."
 
JM said:
I believe the Bible does reconcile the two ideas.
Click to expand...

This is something I've been looking for. But, I've not been able to find anything so far.
Can you show me where the juncture lies? Where or how do the two come together?
 
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Man is dead in sin, what does dead mean to you? In what way is the word dead used [in Greek and English]? How do the dead respond? If dead doesn't mean physically dead, then what does it mean? If it means spiritually dead, how do the spiritually dead accept a spiritual offer? What does it mean to be quickened?

Peace,

jm
 
OK. So that's like a roadkilled rabbit deciding to live again then hop away. I understand that one.
On the other hand we're told to believe and be saved. There is scripture where this is evident and I'm sure you know them also.

Now, the only way to get around that is to say God gave the desire to seek Him in the first place. I can honestly say I wasn't looking for God when the moment happened that I was saved, nor was I drugged up, drunk, no pressing problems at the time, no death of loved ones... in short, things were going pretty good as my interpretation of "good" was back then. Yet, I have witnessed those who called on Christ, accepted Him as their Lord and savior and live a different life than they did before. So the desire was given to call upon Christ for their salvation?
I am not by any means attempting a debate. I'm very serious.
 
PotLuck said:
OK. So that's like a roadkilled rabbit deciding to live again then hop away. I understand that one.
On the other hand we're told to believe and be saved. There is scripture where this is evident and I'm sure you know them also.

Now, the only way to get around that is to say God gave the desire to seek Him in the first place. I can honestly say I wasn't looking for God when the moment happened that I was saved, nor was I drugged up, drunk, no pressing problems at the time, no death of loved ones... in short, things were going pretty good as my interpretation of "good" was back then. Yet, I have witnessed those who called on Christ, accepted Him as their Lord and savior and live a different life than they did before. So the desire was given to call upon Christ for their salvation?
I am not by any means attempting a debate. I'm very serious.
Click to expand...

Or, we are born again spiritually when the Gospel is preached and able to believe. But not everyone is born again when they hear the Gospel.

Peace,

jm
 
JM said:
Or, we are born again spiritually when the Gospel is preached and able to believe. But not everyone is born again when they hear the Gospel.

Peace,

jm
Click to expand...

I would say that we are born again (regenerated) prior to our having faith which comes by hearing of him whom we are to trust upon and lay hold of.
 
RJS said:
I would say that we are born again (regenerated) prior to our having faith which comes by hearing of him whom we are to trust upon and lay hold of.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd add the Gospel is the power unto salvation. Acts 16 and the case of Lydia is a good example. Yes, we are regenerated first, which enables us to believe.

jm
 
JM said:
Potluck, you gotta here this sermon, powerful.
http://mp3.aomin.org/4liberty.mp3
Click to expand...

Excellent sermon on all counts JM.

OK, my bucket is full. This will take a little time to digest but I think the focus for me right now is the sovereignty of God, not man.
In the meantime I'm going to refrain from using labels such as Calvinist, Arminist or Hyper-Calvinist while looking at scripture. There is much food for thought in that sermon and I need to avoid the trap of classification thereby dismissing things out-of-hand solely because a label is used.
I've listened to it once for overview so now I'll need to go back through it again.
In a world where it's claimed there are no absolutes that idea totally ignores or refuses to acknowledge God's sovereignty.

Thank you for posting that sermon JM.
 
sorry...off topic... :oops: wrong thread....I'll write to this when I get time, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top