Romans 9

James - Thanks for the recommendation and Chris for warning me I may not be ready for it...I already have the Geisler book but I never read past the first few chapters in it. I'm going to order Potter's Freedom and put it up for when I am able to understand. I love to read so I'll get to it eventually.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

KayDee:
Your are sooo welcome!!! Enjoy the books. You may also be interested in James White's web site. It is really great. Lots of information, debates, tapes to listen to, etc.
http://www.aomin.org/

James2

 

I have been reading some of the posts in the other threads in the Calvinism/Arminianism section and, in my opinion, good points are being made on both sides of the issue. It appears reasonable to suppose, with the Arminians, that all humans do in fact possess (what we know of as) genuine "freedom of choice".
However, the Calvinists equally appear to be on firm ground in suggesting that God is sovereign over everything that occurs in the universe. This seems to me to suggest that a "compatibilist" view that does not compromise God's sovereignty may be the true view on this issue.
One possibility is that God has predetermined each of our choices by choosing, out of an infinitude of "possible worlds", the world in which we will freely choose to make the choices that we do in fact make in this world. The choices that we make are genuine, in that they are made solely by us, but are nevertheless, predetermined by God from the beginning of creation.
It doesn't appear to be God's desire for anyone to die (and, by extension, to be condemned to hell), (Ezekiel 18:32). But perhaps God could not have created a better world than the one that He created, from His standpoint (which is the only standpoint that counts, since no one else but God existed before He created anything).
Matthew 26:39 seems to suggest that God/Christ does things that He may not wholeheartedly desire to do, because it is according to His plan and therefore ought to be done.
When God created this universe, He probably didn't want to create one in which He would have to die. But He went ahead and created such a universe anyway because such a universe reveals more about God's character, (which is our absolute moral standard), than a universe that doesn't require His death. Thus, WRT God and His moral standard, our world is the better world.
But nether is God being unfair in not "electing" some people to be saved. Those who have not been "elected", due to the character that they would have developed, would probably not enjoy spending eternity in the presence of God anyway. So, hell would probably be the better alternative for them.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


jp:

What we do not believe is that creatures are autonomous; free from the directive sovereignty of God.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If by "autonomy" you mean the ability to choose things like what moral principles are absolute for oneself or what the ultimate plan or purpose for one's life is, then I certainly agree, because we are not ontologically necessary beings who have the power (and knowledge) to create an enire universe, that is comparable to ours, ex nihilo. Created things can only operate within the parameters that have been defined by their creator(s).
For example, a computer program on a digital computer is not "free" to choose to emulate a "neural net" configuration and begin to operate like a "neural net" computer, unless the possibility for such an "evolution" in configuration was put into the computer program at the time that it was written.

But we do, at least, possess the ability to make intentional choices from possible alternatives. And that is perhaps the reason why we can be held morally responsible for our choices.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

 

1. Chris Temple:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The very fact that God has hardened a nation of people, cutting them off from any chance of salvation, speaks to and of individual election (of which Paul has just expounded in chapter 8:28-39). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not necessarily. People in general can be of the same mindset, but individuals can go against the grain of the rest of the group. The election and foreknowledge mentioned in the prior passage does not necessarily support this supposed "hardening" of all others.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In essence what Piper is saying that those who say that election is corporate are antithetical to Paul who says “Not all those from Israel are Israel”, for the corporate election advocate says “all Israel IS Israel”. What results is the necessity that every single Israelite must be saved under this statement, or else corporate election is negated. The other solution is to impose some earthly, temporal election only upon the text, which the text will not support. The chapter is clearly teaching personal election of individuals unto salvation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Paul is simply supporting his argument that in contrast to the Israelites thinking they were all automatically saved by inheritance, many if not most were not saved, because salvation is by faith, not going through the motions of following the Law. Why try to read anything else into this? Noone is saying that all Israel is [true] Israel and that they all must be saved.

2. Pastor Larry:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for Pharaoh, he was hardened and then he resisted God. It is clear from the text in the OT as well as this passage. You cannot say, on the basis of the text, that Pharaoh initiated the hardening. It simply isn’t there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't trying to argue so much which came first. All who do evil deserve hardening, but which onees God hardens and punishes in this life (as the temporal judgments of Pharaoh), and which He shows mercy (allows go their way without any serious consequences in this life) to are up to Him. Of course, this does not say whether either side will eventually repent or not. That was not the point. God's power being shown in the present was what was being taught here.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is not what the text says. The text says that the vessels were prepared for destruction, not the position the vessels were in. You cannot simply ignore the text to argue for your own position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But once again, "vessels" can be groups, as was in the Isaiah passages Paul was drawing upon, and in these cases, the groups are equated with positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I did not say that the non-elect were created for destruction. I do not believe that.
No I do not believe people are elected to hell because it is not in the Bible. I think I already clarified this. Election in the Bible is personal election to salvation. You have a clear non sequiter. The fact that some are elected to salvation does not mean that others are elected to hell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this entire Romans 9 debate is about supposed [individual] "vessels of [eternal] wrath"! What is that but election to hell? Why would you try to deny that after arguing so much for personal reprobation (That is the proper term. I use "election to hell" on my own, because it is really the same thing, and I'm just pointing out the unavoidable negative side of personal "election".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When we elect a president, we do not elect a bunch of non-presidents. We simply allow them to continue what they are doing without interruption. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Earlier you said "There is no hint of God responding to man’s choice. It is placed solely with God. Yet you would make it depend on man." But if man is sinful, and responsible for that, with it even being said to be man's "choice", then God is "responding to man's choice". Do you now see the grave inconsistency of the "personal" reading of this chapter? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Furthermore, Pharaoh still does not represent Israel. There are clear differences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the point is not that they are exactly the same. The point is only raising and hardening, and in that they are the same.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God hardens and punishes in this life (as the temporal judgments of Pharaoh), and which He shows mercy (allows go their way without any serious consequences in this life) to are up to Him…God's power being shown in the present was what was being taught here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t see any basis besides a preconceived theology to decide this is only dealing with the present. “Destruction” and “glory” are not really terms of temporal judgment and no serious consequences in this life. The whole context of 9-11 precludes temporality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But this entire Romans 9 debate is about supposed [individual] "vessels of [eternal] wrath"! What is that but election to hell? Why would you try to deny that after arguing so much for personal reprobation (That is the proper term. I use "election to hell" on my own, because it is really the same thing, and I'm just pointing out the unavoidable negative side of personal "election".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I think you have misunderstood the issues because you want to paint it in a negative light. God does not elect people to hell. He simply does nothing to change their course. The proper term I believe is preterition. It is simply God letting them go the way they want to go. Election involves an active choice to change something. Election to hell would assume the neutrality of man, something Scripture repudiates. Man is not neutral with God electing some to heaven and some to hell. Man is on his way to hell and God chooses some from that group to be saved and the rest he simply lets go the way they want to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But if man is sinful, and responsible for that, with it even being said to be man's "choice", then God is "responding to man's choice". Do you now see the grave inconsistency of the "personal" reading of this chapter? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not at all. This doesn’t even make sense to me. How is God responding to man’s choice? Man is both sinful and responsible and God does nothing to interfere with that in the non-elect.

 

Romans chapter nine is not showing God's affinity toward being unjust, unfair and evil by sending/decreeing the majority of humanity to Hell and the elect/minority to Heaven, but rather the Lord is portraying His mighty, sovereign power working in not only circumstances but people like Esau and Pharaoh. Hebrews chapter eleven documents the fact that Esau is listed among the saints of the former covenant. The Lord via the hand of the writer of the Book of Hebrews seals this truth by saying in verse thirteen and thirty-nine, These all died in the faith . . .' ‘The--- ‘By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come' is inclusive in the writers language. Dr. Merrill C. Tenney in the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary p. 398 makes this statement. ‘Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father.' {Hebrews 11:20}. Dr. Tenney is a Ph.D. from Harvard University and was Dean of the Graduate School at Wheaton College--Illinois.

In Romans chapter nine Pharaoh and Esau are not arbitrarily destined to Hell, because Pharaoh was formed as clay for the reason of not letting the Israelites out of their bondage, at least at first. [Romans 9:17 & Exodus 9:16]. God's purpose in the life of Pharaoh was, as verse seventeen states, ‘ . . .to show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. When people saw the mighty glory and power of the Lord the purpose of Pharaoh's defiance had come to an end. Christians today also notice the might power and sovereignty that the Lord has had in the Hebrews past as well as in human history in our time. Today we know that the last plague reminds us that the Lord's sovereignty and formidable power is infinitely greater than any man-made ruler like Pharaoh. Exodus 9:16 seals up the issue as to the why of Romans chapter nine. In fact, you might conjecture that the Apostle Paul might have borrowed from this rendering of the Exodus account relative to Pharaoh. God is not unconditionally electing some to Heaven and rejecting the majority of all people in every era of time. Pharaoh had every opportunity through his acquaintance with Moses that Rahab did through her involvement with Israelite people, but this man in Egypt rejected the God of the Israelites and the Hebrew system of redemption. His own political importance and religion ruled his life and he made himself a man fitted for everlasting destruction. God being omniscient knew that Isaac, Jacob and Esau would accept the covenant and that this leader in Egypt would reject the God of the Israelite people. [Hebrews 11:20].

"Ray"

 

Romans chapter nine is not showing God's affinity toward being unjust, unfair and evil by sending/decreeing the majority of humanity to Hell and the elect/minority to Heaven, but rather the Lord is portraying His mighty, sovereign power working in not only circumstances but people like Esau and Pharaoh. Hebrews chapter eleven documents the fact that Esau is listed among the saints of the former covenant. The Lord via the hand of the writer of the Book of Hebrews seals this truth by saying in verse thirteen and thirty-nine, These all died in the faith . . .' ‘The--- ‘By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come' is inclusive in the writers language. Dr. Merrill C. Tenney in the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary p. 398 makes this statement. ‘Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father.' {Hebrews 11:20}. Dr. Tenney is a Ph.D. from Harvard University and was Dean of the Graduate School at Wheaton College--Illinois.

In Romans chapter nine Pharaoh and Esau are not arbitrarily destined to Hell, because Pharaoh was formed as clay for the reason of not letting the Israelites out of their bondage, at least at first. [Romans 9:17 & Exodus 9:16]. God's purpose in the life of Pharaoh was, as verse seventeen states, ‘ . . .to show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. When people saw the mighty glory and power of the Lord the purpose of Pharaoh's defiance had come to an end. Christians today also notice the might power and sovereignty that the Lord has had in the Hebrews past as well as in human history in our time. Today we know that the last plague reminds us that the Lord's sovereignty and formidable power is infinitely greater than any man-made ruler like Pharaoh. Exodus 9:16 seals up the issue as to the why of Romans chapter nine. In fact, you might conjecture that the Apostle Paul might have borrowed from this rendering of the Exodus account relative to Pharaoh. God is not unconditionally electing some to Heaven and rejecting the majority of all people in every era of time. Pharaoh had every opportunity through his acquaintance with Moses that Rahab did through her involvement with Israelite people, but this man in Egypt rejected the God of the Israelites and the Hebrew system of redemption. His own political importance and religion ruled his life and he made himself a man fitted for everlasting destruction. God being omniscient knew that Isaac, Jacob and Esau would accept the covenant and that this leader in Egypt would reject the God of the Israelite people. [Hebrews 11:20].

"Ray"

 

Jacob, an Israelite in whom there was decption, demonstrated his own unrighteousness. Especially to Calvinist, the question as to how much one has sinned is irrelevant to his election unto salvation. I would leave my wallet with Esau any day of the week before I left it with Jacob. From my understanding of Scripture, Jacob was one of the elect and when he is conformed into the image of Christ, he will be perfect. But in this life, Esau was more kind and merciful and less deceptive than Jacob.

 

"Esau A Sinner?"

A WARNING . . . . "You are entering a ‘no spin' zone."

Someone on the other side of the church isle thinks that Esau was a sinner and worthy of Hell. In this vein of thinking God ordained him to this dreaded place.

Hebrews 12:15 and 16 says, in effect don't let a ‘root of bitterness spring up and trouble you.' This will cause defilement among the brethren. This could lead to ‘fornication.' He then moves on to speak of Esau being a profane person who sold his birthright for a morsel of meat. As a result, Jacob got twice the inheritance that Esau had allocated to him through his father, Isaac.

God predestined and ordained that Esau would not be the heir leading to Jesus holy birth. He ordained that Esau would not be numbered among the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Jacob became heir to the land of Promise via the lineage of Abraham and Isaac. Esau got Edom. His descendants inhabited a mountainous territory extending from the Zered to the Gulf of Aqaba, hardly an upper class neighborhood. In Obadiah verse 18 the Prophet calls ‘the House of Esau for stubble.' Again, there is a Divine sanction against Esau and his posterity. In life Esau showed himself profane by marrying women from pagan nations rather than from the stock of Israel. He married Judith the daughter of Berri the Hittite and Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite. God in His perfect omniscience knew that Jacob would take the Israelite covenant seriously and would obey his father, Isaac, in marrying only from Jewish lineage, thereby keeping the purity of the genealogy leading to Mary and the birth of Christ. Take note that Jesus was not born from the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher because these sons came to Jacob through maids given to him from his wife, Rachael. Jacob was hardly the paradigm of sainthood in the strictest sense of the word. Weren't we taught in Sunday School that he was ‘a deceiver.'

In Genesis 17:10-14 we are told that if a man was not circumcised on the eighth day he would be ejected by the Israelite families. This for sure would have kept Esau out of the covenant of God's people. This man did receive the sign of the covenant making him officially a part of the covenant family of God. At the close of the narrative in Genesis you will find that Esau returned to Jacob in order to mend their withered relationship, not the sainted, Jacob.

Someone might wonder why is Cain in the heroes of faith chapter? Cain and Abel are inseparably linked in Hebrews 11:4 with each other. I believe that Cain was not saved, meaning he did not enter Heaven at the time of his death. We know Cain was owned by the evil one because the Word of God tells us this in I John 3:12. Here is the quote. ‘Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him. Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.'

The situation in Hebrews 11:1-32 is self explanatory. Isaac, Jacob and Esau would be numbered among the elect saints. Jacob was the ‘deceiver,' nevertheless, the Lord chose him over the less spiritual man named, Esau. I have studied all of the characters in Hebrews eleven and you will never find anything in the Word of God anywhere that delineates that Esau was a child of the evil one. But, the Lord clearly indicates this about Cain. This is why our Lord said in Romans 9:13 ‘Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.' A closer look at the Greek will indicate that the word ‘hated' (emisnas) merely means ‘to love less.' The Lord gave the greater blessing to Jacob and not to Esau. Romans nine has nothing to do with saving the elect and damning the rest of humankind.

Some Christians might consider Jephthae, in Hebrews 11:32 as even less spiritual than Esau. You will find him a good study. Jephthae, rather than breaking a vow that he made before the Lord, took the life of his daughter and offered her body in sacrifice unto the Lord. In this matter, Drs. Keil and Delitzsch offered these poignant words. ‘With regard to Jephthae's vow, the view expressed by Josephus and the Chaldee was the one which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both rabbis and fathers of the church, viz., that Jephthah put his daughter to death and burned her upon the altar as a bleeding sacrifice to Jehovah.' [Drs. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Peabody, MA., Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, Volume II, p. 22l]. Because of his unfailing vow to the Lord Jephthae is remembered for his staunch faith, and Samuel cites Jephthah's leadership in the slaughtering of fort-two thousand Ephraimites, thereby delivering Israel from their enemies so they might dwell in the safety the Lord had promised His people. In the light of this Hebrew history we must acknowledge the fact that Esau and Jephthae are numbered among the Old Covenant saints. Esau in contrast to Jephthae makes Esau look like a person who could be alphabetized on a List of Innocence. A translation of Hebrews 11:13-40 might help in understanding of this consequential passage.

Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, former Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois has an interesting sentence on page 398 of his, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Dr. Tenney's Ph.D. was from Harvard University. Perhaps not everyone has this copy so I'll offer the quote. ‘Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father' {Hebrews 11:20). People trust men and women of God who are brilliant of mind, pure of soul, and spiritually enlightened; here is one named, Dr. Tenney. I believe he is correct.

Was Esau a sinner or was he in covenant relationship with the Lord God? This same God answers the question through the manuscript of His writer in Hebrews 11:20. ‘By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.' Note that Isaac blessed both of his sons as to their spiritual inheritance that they had then and might have pointed to future blessings after the Cross, if God had enlightened him.

If your pastor offers the benediction or blessing over the congregation, only the believers, saints, Christians receive that blessing. God's blessing, like the one Jacob ministered to his sons was never wasted on an unbeliever. Isaac made his sons aware of ‘ . . . the promises . . . that were afar off, and was persuaded of them, and embraced them . . .' [Hebrews 11:13].

Warm regards,

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don’t see any basis besides a preconceived theology to decide this is only dealing with the present. “Destruction” and “glory” are not really terms of temporal judgment and no serious consequences in this life. The whole context of 9-11 precludes temporality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ray gives a good example of how "glory" (regarding Pharaoh) was temporal. According to your interpretation, one of the things you will "glorify" God eternally for is His destroying OTHER people in Hell eternally. That's what these "vessels of wrath" were created for, you all are arguing. And in that light:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Again, I think you have misunderstood the issues because you want to paint it in a negative light. God does not elect people to hell. He simply does nothing to change their course. The proper term I believe is preterition. It is simply God letting them go the way they want to go. Election involves an active choice to change something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But that is precisely what you are reading into Romans 9. Think about "vessels of wrath", and "hardening", these ARE deliberate "active choices" ascribed to God, and this is what is thrown at us everytime someone asks why God would create such people.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Election to hell would assume the neutrality of man, something Scripture repudiates. Man is not neutral with God electing some to heaven and some to hell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has been precisely my point! But,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Man is on his way to hell and God chooses some from that group to be saved and the rest he simply lets go the way they want to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>V. 11-23 is NOT describing people being "allowed to go the way they want"! It is describing neutralentities (v. 11, 16, 21) being assigned to "wrath"/"destruction" or "honor"/"glory".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This doesn’t even make sense to me. How is God responding to man’s choice? Man is both sinful and responsible and God does nothing to interfere with that in the non-elect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He punishes them eternally for it. That is "responding" to man's "choice", contrary to what those three verses say. These are the problems with this interpretation of the chapter. You can't have these things both ways.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The text is not talking of "People in general can be of the same mindset" but of an active hardening by God: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the very verse you quote says: "... that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Romans 11:25. This is the context of the entire passage: "Israel" vs. "the Gentiles", not "the elect" vs "the non-elect" among all groups. This shows that Israel in general was "blinded" (hardened--the "mindset", which was caused by God), even though there were some who were saved.

 

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the late Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary writes this about Supralapsarians, ‘Men were elected or rejected before the decree concerning the fall and without reference to the fall . . . . The effect of this doctrinal scheme is to rob God of all pity and love and to present Him as One who disregards the suffering of His creatures. Such a doctrine may answer to the cold, erring reason of man, but it wholly disregards the full testimony of the Word of God wherein the compassion of God is stressed.' [Vol. I p. 245].

I am sure you have heard of ‘double predestinarians' which means that God ordained some to Heaven and also ordained the majority to Hell. Other people believe He saves His elect and passes by the majority of all people who have lived or ever will live on this planet called earth. They propose that this view is less harsh. The outcome is exactly the same according to this unconscionable view.

‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.' This word ‘hated' in the Greek is the word, ‘miseo.' Dr. James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on p. 48 column 3 uses these three words to express the word, ‘hated.' [ Note ‘hatred, detest, persecute, or to love less.] Arminians may use the less provocative word, but it doesn't really matter. Yes, God really hated Esau to the extent that He chose Jacob to be the son through which our promised Savior was born. Biblical theology indicates that God chose Jacob over Esau as I mentioned in a former posting. This selection was autocratically or sovereignly arranged by the Godhead, but not in selecting Pharaoh, Esau and the non-elect to Hell. God molded this lump of clay named, Pharaoh portraying that God is more powerful than any earthly potentate. [I Timothy 6:15]. Thus, we read ‘ . . . for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.' [Romans 9:17]. In the case of Esau, he was rejected and made by the Potter into an inferior person in that he was not considered worthy of producing the lineage though which the Lord Jesus would be born.

Then there is the reference to Esau ‘ . . . not finding any place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.' Since when do pastors tell their sinner friends or erring saints that they must pound on the altar for hours in the church in order to receive the forgiveness that Christ died for on the Cross. Do we tell people that they must crawl on their knees up the front of the church steps, and then on to the altar, in order to receive inner peace? Do we tell them that they must do ‘penance' in order to receive the favor of God? The words, ‘ . . . though he sought it . . . with tears' gives the idea that God refused to forgive Esau of his sins, as some might interpret it. The truth of the matter is that we tell people if they sincerely confess their sins to the Lord He will pardon them immediately. [Note I John 1:9]. If it is a fact that the Lord forgives a person instantaneously then Hebrews 12:16-17 must mean something entirely different than personal forgiveness.

Here is what Hebrews 12:16 &17 means. The answer to your ‘tears' predicament is found in Genesis 27:31-38. Isaac freely admits that he blessed Jacob in verse 33 and says in effect, "Yes, Jacob will be blessed in the future." In verse 34 Esau frantically, begs and ‘cries with a great and exceeding bitter cry . . . ' for Isaac to bless him, but it was too late! The blessing was already conferred on Jacob. In verse 36 Esau complains that Jacob stole not only his birthright but his blessing also. At the close of verse 36 Esau makes his last futile attempt in receiving a blessing. Did he succeed? No. In verse 38 Esau asks Isaac the third time, ‘Hast thou but one blessing, my father? Esau must have been greatly, distressed because the second time we find him crying. [Note verse 38] ‘And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.' Now Hebrews 12:17 makes sense. ‘For ye know how that afterward, when he would have INHERITED THE BLESSING, HE WAS REJECTED; FOR HE FOUND NO PLACE OF REPENTANCE, THOUGH HE SOUGHT IT CAREFULLY [several times] WITH TEARS.' The Greek word for ‘repentance' [metanoia] means, as Dr. Strong says, ‘compunction for guilt, reformation, or a reversal of another's decision.' p. 47. Now it reads more clearly. When Esau would have ‘ . . . INHERITED THE BLESSING [of Isaac] HE WAS REJECTED, FOR HE FOUND NO PLACE OF REFORMATION OR NO WAY OF REVERSING HIS FATHER'S DECISION, THOUGH HE SOUGHT IT CAREFULLY, WITH TEARS. ' [twice]. Esau tried to reform or change the ruling of his father, Isaac, but it did not happen. This was God's sovereign plan in the lives of these two brothers.

In Hebrews 12:16-17 Esau is not seeking the Lord in the matter of his personal salvation; he already was received by the Twelve Tribes of Israel on the day of his circumcision. Esau was not confessing to the Lord the fact of his being ‘profane' because God would have immediately forgiven his lack of spirituality. Dr. A.T. Robertson, the Baptist Greek scholar explains the word, ‘profane.' It means ‘ . . . trodden under foot, unhallowed.' [Vol. V p. 438].

If anyone was evil it was Jacob who wilfully stole ‘the birthright' and the ‘blessing' from his elder brother, Esau. As I said in the other posting, Esau tried to make things right with his brother, Jacob, even though Jacob was the lapsed saint.

Biblical theology must conclude that the idea of ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated,' means that the Lord had sovereign plans for both brothers, but our Lord favored the lineage of Jacob in bringing about His own incarnation. This well used phrase in Romans 9:13 has nothing to do, in any way, with saving a tiny, minority--the elect and damning the majority--the non-elect.

With warm regards,

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


And this has what to do with election?

Your statement "Especially to Calvinist, the question as to how much one has sinned is irrelevant to his election unto salvation" is completely erroneous. The fact that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is the reason no man can come unto Christ unless the Father draws him. There is no salvation without the grace of election.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't see how that quote contradicts your latter statement. However, Christ did say that when He would be lifted up that He would draw all men unto Him.