Featured Romans 9 and Reformed Error

Thats because its everywhere in the Bible.

 

Response from someone who knows all that you do is kick against God and troll this site

 

You def hate Gods Word.

Which means I am pretty sure that you hate God

 

A troll. Agree.

 

Prov 26:4-5
I Cor 11:16
Phil 2:14
I Tim 3:3
Titus 3:2

 

Why did God choose Jacob rather than Esau? When you read about the two, it seems that Esau is a nicer person. Why would God, in your terms, "prefer Jacob" rather than Esau? (Of course the text says "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.")

Did Paul completely ignore what he was discussing in Romans 8 when he started writing Romans 9? Is the letter disjointed by modern day chapter breaks and verse breaks, or is the entire thought continuing to flow out of what Paul wrote previously?

You won't admit it, but your prejudice is showing in your poor interpretation of Romans 9.

 

In the OP.we have several attempts to explain away the text, saying hate means love less

CHS answers the OP>

” Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

It is a terrible text, and I will be honest with it if I can. One man says the word “hate” does not mean hate; it means “love less:”—”Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I loved less.”

It may be so: but I don’t believe it is. At any rate, it says “hate” here; and until you give me another version of the Bible, I shall keep to this one.


I believe that the term is correctly and properly translated; that the word “hate” is not stronger than the original; but even if it be a little stronger, it is nearer the mark than the other translation which is offered to us in those meaningless words, “love less.”

I like to take it and let it stand just as it is. The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, “Esau have I hated.”

 

next..pt 2...The Spurgeon Library | Jacob and Esau

Others, in order to get rid of this ugly text, say, it does not mean Esau and Jacob; it means the nation; it means Jacob’s children and Esau’s children; it means the children of Israel and Edom.


I should like to know where the difference lies. Is the difficulty removed by extending it? Some of the Wesleyan brethren say, that there is a national election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn round and tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another.


Now, we ask them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people? and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if—which we do not for a moment believe—that if there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his choosing one nation and not another.

No! the difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word. Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations, it says, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger,”—referring to the children, not to the nations.

Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. “Jacob,”—that is the man whose name was Jacob—” Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Take care my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God’s Word. I have heard of folks altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God’s grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God.

 

" That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." ( Romans 9:8 ).

If this is not about God's children, the saved, then who is it speaking of?
If not the ones foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified from Romans 8:1-39 ( them who are in Christ Jesus / those that nothing shall separate from the love of God, etc. ), then who?

What do you see being described here in the details, SBG?
Does it occur to you that who is being spoken of in Romans 8:1-39 are the very same people being spoken about ( and to ) in Romans 4, Romans 5, Romans 6, Romans 7, Romans 8, Romans 9, Romans 10, Romans 11, Romans 12, Romans 13...etc ?

From Romans 1 all the way to Romans 15?

What is this chapter ( Romans 9 ) describing when it declares vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory, knowing that a vessel is indeed a person ( See 1 Peter 3:7 ), and not a nation?
A person whom He has "called", not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles ( Romans 9:22-24 )?

Nations?

Nations aren't described in Romans 9:8, SBG...
God's children are.

 

How many of God's children are in Israel?

" Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 for he will finish the work, and cut [it] short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha." ( Romans 9:27-29 ).

A remnant.
To be more specific, 7,000 of them in Elijah's day ( Romans 11:2-4 ), 7,001 if you count him.
Why was that "seed" left?
So that Israel would not be as Sodom and Gomorrah and totally destroyed by fire in the Lord's wrath...
In case you're wondering, that would be the Lake of Fire ( Revelation 20:15 ).

There it is...the children of the promise that are counted for the "seed".
But it is not just a "seed" out of Israel, my friend;
It is a "seed" out of every tongue, tribe and nation, and a multitude that no man can number ( Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 ).
At this present time, also a remnant according to the election of grace.

It's not "Re-formed" and never was, SBG... it's the truth of the Bible, God's word.
To be part of this remnant, is to be part of the "whosoever believeth", and a recipient of God's mercy and grace towards sinners who weren't even aware that they needed a Saviour... until He opened their eyes to it.

Isn't that worth praising Him for?

That if you've truly believed on Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, then you have Him and Him alone to thank for His goodness to you?
That you were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 )?
Chosen to salvation through ( not because of ) the sanctification of your spirit, and your belief of the truth ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 )?
Chosen by God and caused to approach Him ( Psalms 65:4 )?
That you believed because it was given to you in the behalf of Christ to do so ( Philippians 1:29 )?

It is to me.

 

Child.



Of.



God.

 

pt3;
I. First, then, THIS IS FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Verily, I do not want them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some?

Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he can’t bear it; it is a horrible thing, like a war-cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once.

But say to him, “Ah, brother! was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state, and made you what you are? “Oh, yes,” he says,” “I quite agree with you there.”

Now, put this question to him: “What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?” “Oh,” he says, “the Spirit of God has been at work in this man.” Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognize every day. There is a man up in the gallery there, that work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason of this?

One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel What is the reason of this? God’s providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another.

Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you will with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it.

Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike? He has made some eagles, and some worms; some he has made lions, and some creeping lizards; he has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Some are born with gigantic minds and some verge on the idiot. Why is this? Do you murmur at God for it? No, you say it is a fact, and there is no good in murmuring. What is the use of kicking against facts?