Featured Understanding God’s election

That's OK with me, because I fully understand what the Calvinists taught about this, and how they handled these doctrines. I explained that above in post 77. I'm not asking you or anyone else to change if that is their view.

It is, but you have to read the whole chapter as well as the chapter around it. I dug out my old Scofield Reference Bible and here is what you find as a heading for chapter 9: "IV The Problem of Jewish Unbelief", and then underneath that "God's sovereign wisdom and grace in working out His purpose in spite of the unfaithfulness of Israel". For chapter 10 they have as a subheading "Apparent failure of the promises to Israel explained by their unbelief". And then the heading over verse 10 reads "World-wide outreach of the Gospel; God would have all to be saved". I show you that so you know that what I am saying is not something I just made up. I also have Hodges commentary on Romans and what concerns be is that while he for the most part takes the traditional Calvinist position on the determinism being taught in Romans 9, he does not do what some of you modern Calvinists do.

And that is that after reading all the beautiful unfolding of Christian doctrine, probably in more detail than anywhere else in scripture, you guys come to chapter 9 and the only thing you seem to want to camp on is to have God abruptly switching gears and announcing that he's going to sovereignly send some of us to Hell and we have no right to complain about it. While it is true as a bare fact, it is reasonable to ask if that is what is intended, especially when the introduction to chapter 9 is so clearly stated to be addressing a Jewish problem?

No. I am going to ask you one more time, so you don't say "what is the question". Why does it give you so much pleasure to point out to people that God is sovereignly going to send many of them to Hell, no matter what, and that God's only message to them is to make sure they don't dare complain about it. Is that what you think the Gospel is? I'm saying you go far beyond traditional Baptists and far beyond the Calvinists I am familiar with like Owen, Edwards and Bunyan. And if you do think that that is the message, how do you explain the last two verses of chapter 9?

 

I posted scripture, NOT Calvinist teaching.

Are you able to clearly flesh that out from the context of Romans 9? I'd very much like to see it, if you're able.

,,,and I'm no fan of Scofield. I grew up in a hyper-Dispensational SB 'Scofield church'.

 

That is a Statement of Biblical and Historical Fact.

God receives no pleasure from it and neither do his children.

"God is Sovereignly going to send many of them to Hell" is simply a Statement of Biblical and Historical Fact.

His children who know HOW GOD SAVES SOULS, from a Biblical perspective, will do as God told them and talk to people about exactly all of that, and not a false, man-exalting, religious belief.

"Say unto them, As I Live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;

"but that the wicked turn from his way and live:

"turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways;

"for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11.

Do you want us to lie about it?

 

God's Message to all lost souls, is to "Repent and Believe The Gospel."

If they do that, they are Eternally Saved and if they do not, they were condemned already, as we see in John 3:28;
"He that believeth on Him
is not condemned:

"but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God."

32 "Wherefore?
Because they sought it
(to not be condemned)
not by faith,
but as it were
by the works of the law.

"For they stumbled at that Stumblingstone
(Jesus Christ, The Savour);

33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a Stumblingstone
(Jesus Christ, The Savour)

"and Rock of Offence
(Jesus Christ, The Savour,
The Rock of Ages):

"and whosoever believeth on Him", with John 3:28;
"He that believeth on Him"
(in the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, The Savor)
is not condemned"
and "shall not be ashamed."

"but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God", shall be ashamed."

These that believe not are;
"...They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:", from Romans 9:8a;

and "whosoever believeth on Him"

are "the children of the promise"

and "are counted for the seed", from Romans 9:8b.

"that the Purpose of God according to Election might stand, not of works,
but of Him that calleth"
Romans 9:11 = O.P.

 

That's right. What I have been trying to say is that you should never emphasize God's sovereign right to send sinners to Hell without also the invitation they they come by faith. So what I want to ask you now is to explain the tone of your responses above. What have I said that would cause you to get your knickers in such a knot? You haven't posted much on here so I'm not sure where you are coming from but just so you know, I'm fine with hell, fire and brimstone preaching, and fine with the sovereignty of God. I am not fine with those who try to take Romans 9 and only emphasize the fact that God is within his rights to send people to Hell and remember this very important thing: in the context, this decision is done before you are born and before you have actually done anything right or wrong.

Even with what you have said in the above posts, most of which I agree with, how are you going to work in the invitation to come by faith, which is clearly in the chapter, with the idea that God himself has determined who will be damned before they had done right or wrong and before they were born. I am only suggesting that if this was really to Jews, who falsely were thinking they were "in" because of their bloodline, or because they had the law, it would make a whole lot more sense. Also, I would ask, if this was primarily about the God choosing to send some to Hell would there not have been more of a reference to the universality of sin and the fact that we all start out as sinners. But you don't see it. Why is that?

 

That was Calvinist teaching. Like it or not.

I've been trying to do that without much success. By the way, Scofield's cross references are very useful no matter what you think of his theology.

 

I posted scripture, NOT Calvinist teaching, like it or not.

...hehe...surprise, surprise

Nelson's ASV has the most relevant cross references for me, and I like their margin notes.

I actually bought the 1909 Scofield notes PDF years ago, never did really dig into them, they're on my other PC that just crashed several weeks ago.

 

God has shown us His Will to his people, under the various revelations He has made, so God’s Will of Command requires all men, and it is their indispensable duty, to love Him with all their heart, soul, and strength, to fear Him always, and keep His commandments and He desires that all men should imitate Him in His Moral Perfections.

But, none of those things contradict the Decree of Reprobation.

To Preach the Command of God to a soul to Repent and Believe The Gospel shows what is man’s duty to do; and which, if done, would lead to Salvation and Enable the Practical Graces in them to love Him with their heart, soul, and strength, to fear Him always, and keep His commandments, etc., which would be well-pleasing to God, and approved of by Him, however again, they only express God’s Will of Command.

from notes in
Reprobation - John Gill - Section 1

To Preach the Command of God to a soul to Repent and Believe The Gospel is an expressing WHAT SHOULD BE DONE and does not involve an expression of God's Determining Will, of those things THAT WILL BE DONE.

While, God's Determining Will insures the ultimate execution and fulfillment of God's Decrees of Election and Reprobation.

All of the members of the Human Race are entirely responsible for their own practices and habits of their sin, which Eternally Offend God, and are Commanded to Repent from their sins and turn to God, in Faith toward Jesus Christ.

Since, we all have "sinned in Adam", no one has the ability, or natural capacity to Repent from their sins and turn to God, in Faith toward Jesus Christ and neither is God Obligated to provide that possibility to them.

We all had that possibility and our Federal Head, Adam, lost it, and we all become naturally born into this life under the effect of his having lost that ability and capacity to Come to God on our own.

We are all now in the Natural Sin-cursed Realm and God is still in the Holy Spirit Realm.

God is not at fault for what has happened to us, because Adam Feel into sin and we all now can only produce sin and flesh which profit nothing and so we do sin, BECAUSE WE WANT TO.

We sin and we are responsible for and not God.

Our responsibility is absolute.

We must be Perfect and Perfectly Pleasing to God in ALL THINGS, ALL THE TIME, SINCE OUR CONCEPTION, to deserve a Place in God's Heaven.

God runs Heaven.

So, our 'Invitation' is for all lost sinners to Repent and Believe The Gospel, which now contains God's One Way of Eternal Life, in and through the Blood Sacrifice and Resurrection of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

GOD HAS NOT LOST HIS WILL TO COMMAND and "whosoever" Repents and Believes, were all, exclusively among the "whosoever" that GOD DETERMINED BY HIS WILL TO SAVE.

There is no contradiction, or confusion, or conflict between God's Will to Command to God's Will to Determine.

He tells us God's Will to Command and we "preach the Gospel", and it is God Who Gives the Increase, IF AND WHEN HE DOES, ACCORDING TO THE GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS OWN WILL, in God's Will to Determine to Save His Eternally Elect children

and it is God Who LEAVES TO REST TO DIE IN THEIR SINS, IF AND WHEN HE DOES, ACCORDING TO THE GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS OWN WILL, in God's Will to Determine to LEAVE THE REPROBATE IN THEIR SINS, RIGHT EXACTLY WHERE HE FOUND THEM AND WHERE THEY WANT TO BE.

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I Will with Mine Own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good?" is a Bible verse from Matthew 20:15.

Then, in Hebrews 9:14b;
"Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 "For He saith to Moses,
I will have Mercy on whom I Will have Mercy,

"and I Will have Compassion on whom I Will have Compassion.

16 "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth Mercy."

Do we want to complain about preaching to lost sinners that God is not going to have Mercy on every soul, or are we going to command that lost soul to BEG FOR MERCY, TO SHOW HIS MERCY, TO SUE FOR MERCY?

Romans 9:18, 19b-23; "Therefore hath He Mercy on whom He Will have Mercy, and whom He Will He hardeneth."

"For who hath resisted His Will?

20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?

21 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 "What if God, Willing to shew His Wrath, and to make His Power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 "And that He might make known the Riches of His Glory on the vessels of Mercy, which He had afore Prepared unto Glory" (ref: Romans 8:28-30).

 

Romans 9 is about they are not all Israel, which are are Israel, with the practical Revelation that God's Election is particular and personal, in terms of two specific children named Jacob and Esau:

and since the individual children, Jacob and Esau, are named and said to have been in the womb of Rebecca, to view Romans 9, exclusively, as "if this was really to Jews" in general, only, that it was referring to, would make no sense at all, because we know that Two LITERAL Nations (comprising all of the Jews) could not fit into Rebecca's womb,

"And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels" Genesis 25:23).

Two individual children, Jacob and Esau, one personally Elect and the other not, represented Two Nations, but their Election, or Reprobation, just like Pharaoh's, were indicated as specifically being personal, which all of the Spiritual Israel of God, the CHILDREN of PROMISE are.

The word, 'PROMISE' is certainly indicative of 'ELECTION', which were of individual "children", Selected to be children of God, Given to Jesus Christ, by God the Father in Eternity Past.

Romans 9:6b; "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 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.

9 For this is the Word of Promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (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

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I Hated."

You're trying very hard to 'reason' and finesse yourself around the Plain, Revealed, Word of God, with, if we remember, a mind that is 'reasoning' under the effect of The Fall of Adam into the Natural State of sin that we are all in, but, "a reference to the universality of sin and the fact that we all start out as sinners", was already laid out in Roman's 3, etc. It's a dead issue.

 

I think you are deliberately trying to make the illustration make no sense. It is referring to two individuals, both Jews, and that is the whole point in a chapter devoted specifically to Jews. Remember, gentiles, with all their problems, did not have a misconception that their race would entitle them to be "the elect" in any sense. That was a specific Jewish issue. I just think it was as if Paul is saying he would like to have a word with his kinsmen for just a moment.

It was indeed already laid out, and what was also laid out was that all, Jew and Gentile, were under sin, those with or without the law. Then you had all the chapters of theology unfolding from Romans 3-8. It's the writer, who I assume was Paul, who shifts gears in chapter 9 and specifically addresses his own people. I'm not finessing anything.

I don't even have a problem with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 if the whole chapter is included as a basis for doctrine. What some Calvinists do is to so camp on the idea of a sovereign election of Jacob instead of Esau for salvation and damnation respectively (even though I am not convinced that is the intention of the author), but even worse, they forget to mention that the chapter ends with the fact that the Jews, if they would approach with faith, and not rely on bloodline or later, works, would be fine. By omitting that, and only stressing the election part, they represent God incorrectly. And then, they make even more of a mistake by falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with this false, or at best partial exegesis (eisegesis) of the chapter by misusing the warning God gives about questioning his sovereignty to make is seem that the warning applies to anyone who questions their interpretation of the passage!

 

You`re saying that no one from Adam to Abraham were Elected, until Abraham and the beginning of the Jewish Nation?

And that God chose Pharaoh as a vessel of destruction and left his hardened heart to continue to be hardened, being left out of God`s Decree of Election, by God's Decree of Rejection, that this chapter shows us that Pharoah was all about being a Jew?

To place Romans 9 as being only about Jews, you have to make every soul that God Foreknow, Predestinated, and Called, in Roman's 8, JEWS ONLY, too.

Paul said God Called the Gentiles, in Roman's 9:23 & 24;

23 "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Paul didn't exactly go about excluding the Gentiles, when writing to the saints at Rome, and to assume Romans 9 is "a chapter devoted specifically to Jews", isn't suggested at, or referred to anywhere.

Saying that his audience consisted of exclusively saved Jews in Rome, hearing Romans 9 taught, is unable to be confirmed and is actually very, very, highly improbable.

There is no finding.

Prove it up.

Romans 1:4 "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

1:5 "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

6 "Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:"

What was the purpose of Paul's words in Roman's 9, when he said he wanted to talk to them, to have fruit among them as he had among "Among other Gentiles"?

Romans 9:13; "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

14 "I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

15 "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also."

16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Where on earth did you dream this kind of imaginary speculation from?

"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed"
(Acts 13:48).

"The immutability of God teaches us that whatever God wills at any time, He always has willed.

"There can be no more a new thought, a new intent, or a new purpose in God, than there can be a new God" (Ness).

"Consequently when God saves a man, He must always have intended and purposed to save him.

"That purpose and intent to save him involves an election of him to salvation. Hence election is eternal. To affirm otherwise is to deny the immutability of God.

(The Foreknowledge of God

"Rom. 8:29 asserts that God foreknew those whom He saves.

"This foreknowledge involved a purpose to save these.
And this purpose to save them involved election.

"Did this foreknowledge have a beginning? If so, then there was a time when God was not omniscient and, hence, not perfect and infinite.

"Without perfection and infinity there can be no God.

"Therefore the foreknowledge of God is eternal, and, consequently, election is eternal; because election is involved in foreknowledge, as pointed out above."

"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4).

"God chose you from the beginning" (2 Thess. 2:13).

"That which took place before the foundation of the world, took place before the beginning of time: for in the beginning of time the world was created (Gen. 1:1).

"The first passage above, then, definitely puts election in eternity.

"The second passage means that ever since the beginning our election has been a completed act.

"Thus it took place before the beginning, and, since in eternity there is no before or after, there never was a time when election had not taken place. This is the meaning of eternal."

"That there is an individual election of Gentiles as well as of Jews to eternal life is evident from-

Romans 9:24.

"In this verse, Paul follows his reference to "vessels of mercy . . .afore prepared unto glory" with the statement: "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

"This shows us clearly that the "vessels of mercy," which are manifestly elect individuals, are made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

"Thus we have an individual election of Gentiles as well as of Jews.

"On this verse Prof. Brown remarks illuminatingly: "Here for the first time in this chapter the calling of the Gentiles is introduced; all before having respect, not to the substitution of the called Gentiles for the rejected Jews, but to the choice of one portion of the same Israel.

"Had Israel's rejection been total, God's promise to Abraham would not have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but Israel's rejection being only partial, the preservation of a 'remnant,' in which the promise was made good, was but 'according to the election of grace.'

"And now, for the first time, the apostle tells us that along with this elect remnant of Israel it is God's purpose to 'take out of the Gentiles a people for His name' (Acts 15:14)."*

This is where the Election of Gentles is confirmed, however, all the Gentiles in the Old Testament had been Elected from Eternity Past, because, again, in Roman's 8 we already learned that those who God Calls and Justifies, were Foreknown and Predestinsted.

Here is an article about several dozen, mostly all Saved Gentiles, and therefore, who had been Elected, named in the Old Testament:

Gentiles Included in Old Testament Israel

*notes quoted from http://sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/FTP_Root/TPSimmons/TP_Simmons/SIMMONSELECTION.htm

 

We just need to ask what God's Purpose was for Paul's words in Roman's 1:13, when he said he wanted to talk to them, to have fruit among them as he had among "Among other Gentiles"?

Romans 1:13; "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto, that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles."

Since, Paul said he was there to have some fruit among other Gentiles, then those he was speaking to obviously included Saved Gentiles.

Paul was saying that those at Rome included Gentiles.

Then, in Roman's chapter 9 we have those words repeated, in 9:24;

There, Paul refers to those Gentiles he was speaking to in Rome, as being, "us";

9:24 "Even us, whom He hath Called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

So, in chapter 9, Paul is definantly speaking to Gentiles.

Then, are you ready for `The Clincher`?

In the previous verse 9:23, in context with vs 9:24, Paul had begun to disclose clearly that The Gentiles were Elected.

23 "And that He might make known the Riches of His Gory on the Vessels of Mercy, which He had afore Prepared unto Glory,"

The "Vessels of Mercy", in Roman's 9:23, include "The Gentiles", in Roman's 9:24, who Paul also referred to as being among "us", who he was speaking to, all in Roman's chapter 9.

24 "Even us, whom He hath Called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Then, the Clincher which God Reveals to us through Paul about The Gentiles being included in Eternal Election, is right there in that same verse, in Roman's 9:24, where "the Vessels of Mercy", that Paul is talking about, from vs 23, who also where part of "Even us", who he was talking to, and Paul says there that God had designated The Gentiles, as being among those, "whom He hath Called", in Eternal Election.

24 "Even us, whom He hath Called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Paul said God Called the Gentiles in Eternal Election, there in Roman's 9:24.

And, "...whom He did Predestinate, them he also Called:
and whom He Called, them He also Justified:..." Romans 8:30.

So, The Bible teaches from Roman's 9,

1.) It is addressed to The Gentiles, as well as The Jews,

2.) All Gentiles who ever were or will be Saved, are "Vessels of Mercy", as well as The Jews,

3.) All Gentiles who ever were Saved, were Eternally Elected by God, as PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, IN ETERNITY PAST, just like any Elect Jew.

 

No. I am saying that Paul is using two Jews, of the same father and mother, to make the point that God is sovereign in his choosing for favor in general. He started with the illustration of Isaac, who was blessed, and other children of Abraham were not. But then if that were not enough, he went to the twins to show that even with the same mother and father, God is still choosing according to his purpose. You don't have to accept this, but understand that this is the same take on those verses as Charles Hodge has in his commentary on Romans.

After he debunked the privilege of race based favor, uses Pharoah to show that God also can choose to show mercy or harden and even our willing and running is subject to God's sovereign election. So it has been explained at this point that family tree nor conduct over rules God's sovereignty. And again, I'm still with Hodge.

You have no right to make such a logical leap. I say it is addressed to Jews because Paul starts out by saying so. No other reason. And yes, part of the message he wanted the Jews to understand was that God is calling Gentiles.

No. Paul didn't. But that was a major issue with the Jews of the day as shown in other passages. Even Jesus, as an illustration told the woman he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Once again, the chapter starts out by Paul saying he's talking about his kinsmen after the flesh. He said it directly. You are doing an eisegesis to change this. It's OK with me, as I personally believe as a general rule that you can apply scripture anyway it is helpful but still, it says what it says.

The idea that Jews were more into thinking of themselves as elect because of their bloodline is well documented and the idea that this was more prominent than the works based legalism is also kicked around a lot. I didn't dream it up but I would suggest if you just keep the concept in mind and go back an reread some passages of Jews interacting with gentiles under Paul and Peter, and Pharisees interacting with Jesus ("at least we know who our father is") and it makes sense. And once again, I should emphasize, that Hodge is still on board with this too.

 

Thank you for illustrating my complaint against an overly Calvinistic eisegesis of chapter 9. All the above stuff is nice, and I agree with most of it, but you have to jam it into Chapter 9. And, what makes it offensive, is you take a warning given by God not to question his right to do as he wishes with created beings, and apply that warning instead to anyone who disagrees with all the theological implications you added to the chapter. You have no right to do that.

This is where everyone reading this needs to do their homework. Hodge, and the Puritan era Calvinists did indeed believe in the right of God to dispose of his already sinful creatures as he sees fit by saving some and by leaving the rest to continue on fitting themselves for destruction. But this is different from the use of Jacob and Esau, who in order to make them fit this interpretation, even Hodge had to say that they potentially had the tendency to sin. Why? Because they had not yet done anything good or bad. That is why I think that the illustration of the twins was fitting for the Jews and their preconceived beliefs rather than salvation and damnation in general. Hodge even goes into treatment of whether it's God who creates people or "fits" them to be evil, or suffers them to do so, and he explains how this works, and how it is said that in either case God can be said to "cause" the scenario. But the differences in meaning are important and he points out that strict Calvinists often take the latter view.

But even more important is that Hodge, and the Puritan era Calvinists always kept a balance in mind that some of you modern guys forget. They always connected the sovereignty of God with the grace of God so that they would, at the same time as they asserted the truth of sovereignty, were also asserting the invitation to come by faith. What I see often in the modern Calvinist literature is the tendency to almost joyfully proclaim the idea that God chooses many for damnation, without the balanced truth of the invitation to come to Christ by faith. Yet it's right there in Romans 9, and Hodge and Owen were always warning those who heard this that in fact, the truth that you were under God's sovereignty, and God could rightfully damn you and you could do nothing about it, did not change the fact that you could indeed do something about it if you would come to Christ by faith. To teach one aspect without the other, and then rebuke people for objecting to what really amounts to your eisegesis rather than what Paul was saying is simply wrong.

 

@Alan Dale Gross
In post 92 you are raising an objection to something I did not say. Paul never had a problem going to gentiles. He knew it was his appointed ministry. Everything indeed in the chapters before 9 are inclusive of Jews and Gentiles. It was the Jews who kept having problems with this and so Paul takes them on specifically in chapter 9. He unpacks it further in ch. 10. There is a huge emphasis on coming by faith for everyone, Jew or gentile. Like I said, I'm not against individual election or reprobation (if passive). I do think there is a danger and I think it is easy to see the problematic interpretation some Calvinists do on chapter 9.

 

"3. Let it be observed, that it is the grace of God only that can remove this incapacity, or make men incapable of loving, fearing, and obeying him.

"We love God, because he first loved us;" love is a fruit of the Spirit, and the produce of his grace.

"An heart to fear the Lord, is a part of the new covenant; in which covenant God has also promised to put his Spirit within his people, to cause them to walk in his statutes, and keep his judgments, and do them (1 John 4:19; Gal. 5:22; Jer. 32:39, 40; Ezek. 36:27).

"Now the grace of God is his own, and he may do what he will with it, bestow it on whom he pleases, and withhold it from whom he thinks fit, without any impeachment of his moral perfections;

"wherefore to leave men without his grace, and in an incapacity of loving, fearing, and obeying him, and to determine to do so, even though he determines and approves of these things, cannot be contrary to the perfections of his nature. For,

"4. It is not to be doubted of, that God requires the very devils to love, fear, and obey him;

"they are under obligation to these things, and it is their sin that they do not do them;

"and should they be done by them would be approved of by God: and yet they are not only in an incapacity to do them, but are all of them: and that for ever, left in this incapacity.

"Now if it will comport with the moral perfections of God, to leave the whole body of apostate angels, for ever, in an incapacity of loving, fearing, and obeying him;

"though he requires these things of them, and they would be grateful to him if done, it cannot be contrary to the perfections of his nature, to leave, and to determine to leave, even the greatest part of mankind, and that for ever, in such an incapacity.

"5. It is a misrepresentation of the decree of reprobation, that God has ordained that men should not be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, for want of anything on his part requisite to make them so.

"Since, though by this decree God has determined to deny them his grace to make them so, yet he has not by it ordained that they should be unholy, unrighteous, unkind, and unmerciful;

"only has determined to leave them to themselves, and the freedom of their own wills, which issues in their being so, wherefore their being so, is not to be ascribed to the denial of his grace, much less to his decree to deny it, but to their own wickedness;

"nor is his command, even under the penalty of his severe displeasure, that they be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, inconsistent with his leaving them, or his determining to leave them in an incapacity of being so;

"since, as has been shown, that incapacity is from themselves."

from  Reprobation - John Gill - Section 1

33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."

 

AND ALSO chapter 9:

21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

You are contradicting Paul's AND Peter's assessments that GOD IS NO RESPECTOR OF PERSONS..

Romans 2:9-11

Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35

 

What does that mean, 'if passive'?

 

Alan. Sometimes I don't know what you are trying to say with the use of quotes from Gill. The ones above I agree with.

So what I am saying is that in light of what Gill says above, do you want to apply this to the example of Jacob and Esau? It clearly says that God chose one over the other before either of them had done anything good or evil. And in this context I think this is applicable to the fact that God has a sovereign right to do what the subject is that is being discussed - namely, the opening of salvation up to the gentiles. It is not about God's sovereign election of Jacob to salvation and Esau to damnation which though under God's sovereignty, works like Gill has stated above. (Both were born depraved and sinful, incapable of saving themselves and dependent on saving grace. Therefore, it would not have been emphasized that neither of them had done anything good or evil if election to salvation and damnation of the two boys was the subject.)
Instead, and this would make perfect sense to a Jew who thought he was of the race exclusively owning salvation, that the twins, both of Abraham's linage were subject to God's sovereign choice therefore God may and indeed has, opened salvation to the gentiles. And as the chapter goes on to say, for the gentiles it is by faith, but by the way, Jews, seemingly cast aside, can also come - but it must be by faith also. They cannot rely on heritage.