Why would God say:  "I Have Hated Esau..."?

"Predestination", "Total Sovereignty", "FORCED" Adam/Eve to sin, God, Not Satan, not only tempted, but "DECEIVED" Adam and Eve into "Thinking", "THEY" were "guilty" of the offence, when actually, it was the "Soveriegn will of God", rather than the weakness of "THEIR TEMPTATION".


"Total Sovereignty", begins "at the very beginning", so, who/what's responsible for "SIN"??

1. God's sovereignty
2. man's choice???

Are you going to maintain that it was "God's sovereign will" for Adam to eat of the tree when Scripture "PLAINLY" says God told them "NOT TO EAT"???

Even a "Child" knows it's not the "will" of the parent when they're told "don't do something".

but Calvinism says, "yes it is their/God's will".

Actually, Adam/Eve got into trouble with God because they were following God's "Sovereign will" for sin to enter the world.

Like to buy some ocean front property in Tennesse??? "Cheap".

 

Great post, me4him.

That's why I have always maintained that there is no such thing as "hyper calvinism". The system of calvinism by default is "hyper" if you take God's sovereignty to the depths they do.

 

Me4 asks:
"Like to buy some ocean front property in Tennesse??? "Cheap"."
You're kidding, right??
Where are you going to find cheap property around Gatlinburg or Opryland(R)?
Ed

 

Hello webdog.

No webdog that is not a true reflection of the Calvinists ranged against you. You know as well as me that they do not believe in double predestination, why do you argue with them as if they do? Why don't you listen to what is being said by them? They do not believe God caused anyone to sin, deal with that instead of accusing them of preaching a thing they don't.

It depends on where one stands as a Calvinist that determines whether one believes another hyper. Where's the rule book that tells anyone what to believe to be in conformity? Does it irk you that Calvinists don't believe what you want them to believe? (Can anyone tell me if Calvinism was used while the great man was alive?)

Me4Him, God is Sovereign.

john.

 

"Cheap" is "relative" to "ocean front", in Tennessee.

 

Me4Him:
Heh! Heh!
Ed

 

"FAITH" or lack thereof, is an "obstacles" God can't/won't overcome/move to save, he calls, but it's your option to answer the call.

Which was "BY FAITH".
Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all.... and upon all them that believe:

 

Look at Isaiah chapters 41-42:

continuing down in the same context...

Just my opinion:
1. In the Old Testament elect had to do with God's chosen people Israel (the old covenant).
2. In I Peter 2:6 the elect is obviously Christ.
3. In Romans 9:11 the election could just simply be referring to God's choice of which son would be the father of the nation of Israel. The main point being that Jacob was not the firstborn; therefore, the fact that God specifically chose Jacob is obvious.
4. In every other passage in the New Testament elect seems to refer to believers.

 

Another context for election--Romans 11:28:

Is it possible that the election in this verse could be referring to Israel? God still has a loving covenant with the nation of Israel as a whole. Concerning the gospel Israel has become enemies of those that preach it; yet concerning the fact that they are God's chosen people (election), they are beloved for the sake of God's covenant with the fathers. Could this be the correct way to read this passage?

 

"FAITH" or lack thereof, is an "obstacles" God can't/won't overcome/move to save, he calls, but it's your option to answer the call.</font>[/QUOTE] That isn't scriptural nor is it consistent with the biblical God.

Unless you are an open theist then you must agree that when God calls someone that will respond He does so for a different reason than when He "calls" someone who will reject.

You are still ascribing individual salvation to an individual's own good will... making God a respecter of persons, a victim of the sovereign creature, and impotent.

Which was "BY FAITH".
Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all.... and upon all them that believe:</font>[/QUOTE] It's amazing that you think stripping a scripture of its context makes a good argument.

The "righteousness" is of God. The goodness to have faith DOES NOT come from YOU. The immediate context provided by verses 11-21 argues clearly that man is not good and does not seek God. The source of saving faith is ultimately God's election and regeneration of the saints according to His own good pleasure. He changes one's nature and they believe of their own freel will operating under that new nature.

Cross reference to Ephesians 1 and 2:8-9. We are saved BY grace and THROUGH faith- not by faith through grace.

[/b] I explained this before. Why are you feigning to be obtuse?

The definition you use for "willing" when arguing against Calvinism is no less harmful to your position. If God "wills" that none perish in the sense you argue then either God is not omnipotent or universalism is true.

Did you go to the Bill Clinton school of word twisting and evasion?

You didn't answer the question... you just asked something very akin to what the definition of "is" is.

If God didn't predestine sin, then Adam's sin dictated the necessity of Jesus,</font>[/QUOTE] Wrong. God knew that sin would occur before He created man and gave him a choice... yes, a real choice. God permitted it.

You are attempting to make a issue here as a smokescreen. I think we both believe that man chose and chooses sin. What we disagree on is what the root cause for salvation is. I say it is God's grace and goodness. You say it is man's free will and goodness.

I recognize that Adam as mankind's representative made a choice that was not of the same "similitude" as any choice made since except for the sinless Christ (Romans 5). His choice resulted in spiritual death for our whole race- inherited from our parents.

Man's sin was not caused by God but God did foresee it and incorporate it in His plan... If He had so chosen, this "obstacle" could have easily been moved by Him. Yet it apparently suited His purpose just the way it was.

No. God's plan of redemption preceeds Adam's "choice". God planned it from the start. He allowed man's sin which He most certainly could have prevented so that His plan would be accomplished.

Your argument is vanity. Just like the absurd argument that says that God is guilty of sin because He put the tree in the garden knowing would be tempted and fail.

"FAITH" is not "goodness", Faith leads "TO" God's Salvation/Grace.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Grace uses faith as its vehicle. You need to re-read Ephesians 2:8-9.

Beyond that, faith is good unless you are arguing that the lack of faith is not good reason for a person being lost. Even worse for your position, you argue that God's sovereign act of regeneration doesn't result in this faith but rather a person makes a free will decision. Decisions are made by a process of evaluation. Processes, whether mental or physical, are work.

For by grace (cause) are ye saved (effect) through faith (means).

God isn't "Obligated" to save any, but under "LAW/JUSTICE", equal opportunity must be offer to "ALL".</font>[/QUOTE] That is you imposing your bias upon God. You have placed an "obligation" by your own fiat- without scriptural basis. By law/justice, God shouldn't save any.

But you are still left with a problem if you were even in the neighborhood of being right... the opportunity IS NOT offered to all. Many live and die without hearing the gospel. Further, none of those who DO hear the gospel hear it with equal clarity and frequency. This notion of equal opportunity you have is beyond ridiculous.

Do you know that "mountains" are "symbols" for "kingdoms", Scripture is saying, get these earthly kingdoms out of the way, make way for the "heavenly Kingdom". </font>[/QUOTE] Symbolism isn't grounds for overturning direct declarations of scripture.

But your answer has nothing to do with the question anyway.

The "answer" has been on every pages, but your "rose colored glasses" prevents you from "SEEING". </font>[/QUOTE]Simplify it for me. Yes or no will suffice.

 

Of course, we would likely all agree that nothing ultimately comes from man. Man did not create himself. God created everything that exists; therefore, no matter what you believe, "faith" comes from God. Technically, what difference does it make when the "faith" is "given" to a believer? All people have "faith"; it is the object of faith that makes the difference.

 

God created everything that exists... Suffering?

Faith is trust not just believing Jesus exists but trust. Who do you trust AresMan, you or Jesus Christ? You cannot trust Christ to the extent you trust in your free will man. Faith isn't a voucher that one can spend wherever one pleases.
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God...
Now everyone pleases God.


john.

 

The "Call" is "equal to all", "JUSTICE" demand it.
I'd suggest you learn a little about "law/Justice", Judgment day is Judgment "according to law".

Again, calvin's doctrine is "refuted" by the natural things we see in life, which is the best evidents it's "false".

Mt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

This young man wasn't save, yet was "seeking God", as do many others today.

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found,

I "think" I "see" why you've got everything "backwards".

You left out an "option", You being "WRONG".

When "not willing for any" becomes "willing for some", you could qualify as a "Professor" at "Clintons school".

choice isn't "permitted" under "Total soveriegnty", which is it???

Have you ever read the parable of the "Sower", the seed that grew, where did it land, "Good Ground"??

Would you like to guess what the "Body" is made from???

There's an understanding of scripture that goes beyond the "words on the paper".

Again, you're "tripping" over the difference in "Foreknowledge" and "Predestine".

No, that's what Calvin is saying with "total sovereignty" and "predestination".

Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed (faith) God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (saved)

You've got "A LOT" to learn about scripture.

Exactly, but if he offers salvation to "ONE", then he's "obligated" to offer it to "ALL", which he did, Jesus didn't come to condemn the world but to save it, and died for the sins of the "Whole world".

Yes, the Bible does teach a different doctrine than the books men write about it.

God's "perfect will" was to have this a "perfect world", did man "THWART" that "will"???

 

Scripture has a "dual application", one "Spiritual", one "literal".

The "promise" made to Abraham applies "literally", to Israel. (Jews)

It's still "BY FAITH", that doesn't change.

In every generation from Abraham until the "end", a "decendant" of Abraham will be saved.

Ro 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This isn't due to "predestination", but "Foreknowledge", no one is saved outside the plan of salvation, BY FAITH.

And it's because of this Jew today can be "enemies of the gospel" and still have a "HOPE" of being saved, which "NO GENTILE" can say the same.

God's promise to "save a remnant" is only for the nation of Israel, this is why they are referred to as "ELECT",

Jesus saves from among "ALL NATIONS" on a "WHOSOEVER WILL" bases, the "Gentiles" are not "Elect" until saved, then they become "Jews".

Joh 4:22 for salvation is of the Jews.

Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, (born again)

The trib is the last week of "Daniel's 70 weeks" prophecy, and it's during this time God will bring the "Literal Remnant" to salvation that he promised to Abraham.

 

Israel is God's "elect" nation for the purpose of being a peculiar nation among nations.
Believers are God's "elect" individuals for the purpose of being saved from wrath and being a peculiar people all around the world.

 

The "Call" is "equal to all", "JUSTICE" demand it.
I'd suggest you learn a little about "law/Justice", Judgment day is Judgment "according to law".</font>[/QUOTE] I would suggest you stop making up rules for God to obey.

Justice does NOT demand it. Justice demands that each and every one of us be thrown into hell for eternity. That would be justice. It is "unjust" that any are saved.

You still haven't shown an scripture that makes this fallacy of "equal opportunity" a requirement on God.

Again, calvin's doctrine is "refuted" by the natural things we see in life, which is the best evidents it's "false".

Mt 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

This young man wasn't save, yet was "seeking God", as do many others today. </font>[/QUOTE] Notably this man was not seeking God. He was seeking self-justification (like many today) as becomes apparent if you leave it in context.

And though you "claim" that my point is refuted by "nature"... you didn't refute it with nature or scripture.

I "think" I "see" why you've got everything "backwards". </font>[/QUOTE] Read the text... it isn't ME that has it backwards.

You left out an "option", You being "WRONG". </font>[/QUOTE] That answer was full of substance ... but very informative none the less.

choice isn't "permitted" under "Total soveriegnty", which is it??? </font>[/QUOTE] Says who? Certainly not me or the orthodox calvinists I have read here. I don't even think that Calvin himself would agree with your characterization. This is simply a convenient straw man for you since you cannot debate what we actually say and believe.

Have you ever read the parable of the "Sower", the seed that grew, where did it land, "Good Ground"??</font>[/QUOTE] Certainly, I have. Please point to the place in that passage that made the "good ground's" goodness dependent on an act of the ground rather than an act of God.

Not a valid one if you have to superimpose your personal opinions and biases over scripture as you are attempting to do.

If I am... it wasn't demonstrated by anything you wrote.

Maybe so... but I do know that God called Abraham and purposed to make a great nation of him before Abraham demonstrated any "faith".

You'll have to show chapter and verse for that claim... since it makes God an abject failure in that obligation. It has not been offered to all... and certainly not to the same degree to any.

If Christ's death is "efficient" for the whole world then God is unjust for condemning any. Your only consistent conclusion with this line of argument is universalism... which is also unbiblical.

God's "perfect will" was to have this a "perfect world", did man "THWART" that "will"??? </font>[/QUOTE]That was not God's will or He would not have predestined that Christ come to redeem the world.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN A SIMPLE DIRECT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. This is very telling. You know that your answer is wrong but can't bring yourself to give it or admit it.

 

Double post.

 

Have you ever read the parable of the "Sower", the seed that grew, where did it land, "Good Ground"??</font>[/QUOTE]A little more...

I actually like this parable very much since it is just one more illustration that validates God's sovereignty in salvation.

I forgot to add above that the good ground wasn't good by choice... it was good by nature. That is completely consistent with my point that God changes the man's nature prior to "the seed" and totally inconsistent with your contention.

 

There was a quote made by someone above:

"quote: Did you go to the Bill Clinton school of word twisting and evasion?"

I am no special fan of Bill Clinton by any stretch of the imagination, but is this implied guilt by association or defamation of character or character assassination really necessary, here?
For the record, I did not vote for Bill Clinton to be President, either time he ran, nor would I be at all likely vote for him today for ANY office. I thought he should have been impeached, which he was, and convicted on the impeachment charges and removed from the Presidency. Obviously, the US Senate did not agree.
I do not care what your personal opinion of any particular person is, this sort of thing is a 'cheap shot'.
Ed

 

I said it. Follow the whole thread.

Repeatedly my distinguished opponent has evaded direct questions... often by twisting words... similar to what Clinton did when asked questions that he knew would hurt his cause if answered directly and honestly.

I am sorry if you don't like the analogy. Certainly if Me4Him took it as an egregious offense, I would encourage him/her to say so or else just report it to the moderators for amendment.

Intended as a provocation... yes. A provocation to stop evading and answer a simple direct question.

Sorry it so offended your sensibilities.