If you are not a Calvinist or an Arminian ...

Ken Hamilton,

You Calvinists seem to have an affinity toward Heb. 12:16 inferring that Esau was a 'fornicator.'
If you had an elder in your church who committed 'fornication' or 'adultery' how many times would he have to commit said sin before he would lose his salvation?

If you say that he would never lose his salvation, then neither did careless Esau.

Jacob also had at least two children by hand-maidens other than his wife. Should we shorted the list of the saints because of strong feelings about adultery? Let's keep Isaac on the list of saints; if that's alright with all the brethren?

"If men will pronounce the character of God unamiable, because he is just, and dooms sinful beings to hopeless misery, they prove thereby that they do not love the God whom the Scriptures reveal, and by whom they are to be judged. Their quarrel with the doctrine of election is, in truth, a quarrel with the justice of God, from which that election has not delivered them."

- John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, pp. 520-521.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 05, 2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

Ray,

Where's that part of Hebrews 11 that attributes faith to Esau. Please cite it before continuing to post.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You Calvinists seem to have an affinity toward Heb. 12:16 inferring that Esau was a 'fornicator.'

If you had an elder in your church who committed 'fornication' or 'adultery' how many times would he have to commit said sin before he would lose his salvation?

Jacob also had at least two children by hand-maidens other than his wife. Should we shorted the list of the saints because of strong feelings about adultery?

Click to expand...

1) What inference? It is stated that Esau was a fornicator.

2) Sins by a saint do not cause him to use his salvation since His salvation is in God's hands. Where do you get the idea that Esau was ever saved?

3) Jacob did not commit adultery. Polygamy was allowed in the Old Testament after The Fall. A handmaiden was considered an extension of the wife - which in Jacob's case he had two plus each of them had a handmaiden. Abraham also had a child by Sarah's handmaiden.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

Hebrews 11:20 indicates that both Esau and Jacob were covenant believers, otherwise why would God have moved the writer to say that 'Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.' He clearly is speaking about their spiritual inheritance when their lives were over. We do remember that these two men lived hundreds of years before the writing of the Book of Hebrews.

The following is from John Gill's commentary on Hebrews 11:20:

Verse 20. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau,.... The history of this is in Genesis 27:33. The former of these was a good man, and, though the youngest son, he is set before, and was blessed before the eldest; and the latter was a wicked man, and yet had a blessing; for temporal blessings are enjoyed in common: and this blessing was prophetic, it was concerning things to come. Jacob's blessing was plenty of temporal things, and under which may be signified the dews of divine grace, the fatness of God's house, the bread of life, and wine of divine love, which true Israelites partake of; also dominion over his brother, and government over nations, which had their accomplishment in his posterity; and may be expressive of the spiritual reign of the saints, and their dominion, by grace; and of the kingdom that shall hereafter be put to their hands; and of the extensiveness of Christ's kingdom in the latter day, who was to spring front him. Esau's blessings were merely temporal ones, and respected things future, which were fulfilled in his posterity; and these several blessings Isaac pronounced upon them by faith, believing they would be bestowed upon them; and so his faith answered to the account of faith in Hebrews 11:1. It may be asked, how Isaac can be said to have blessed Jacob by faith, when he was deceived by him? It is certain he took him to be Esau, when he blessed him, wherefore it was not the design of Isaac, though it was the will of God that he should bless him, Genesis 27:18, but yet notwithstanding this, Isaac might do it in faith, believing that the person he blessed would be blessed, though he was mistaken in him; and which he confirmed when he did know him, Genesis 27:33 to which the apostle may have respect; and besides, he blessed him after this, Genesis 28:1.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 05, 2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

What is the meaning of Romans 9 and Hebrews 12:16?

Why did God call Esau profane?

Esau was carnal because he took to wife two pagans, namely, Judith the daughter of Berri the Hittite and Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite. God, in His foreknowledge, knew that Jacob would take the covenant seriously and would obey his father, Isaac, in marrying only from Jewish stock, thereby keeping the purity of the genealogy leading to Mary and the birth of Christ. Take note that Jesus was born not of the Tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher, because these sons of Jacob were born through maids given to him from his wife, Rachael. Our Lord was born to us coming from the purity of the Israelite heritage, namely, through the Tribe of Judah.

God's Divine prerogative was that Jacob would become the son of promise and Esau would merely be included in the covenant promises. The pure and royal seed was spearheaded first in Abraham, then Isaac and through Jacob. The twelve tribes of Israel came into existence because of the birth of Jacob, the son of promise, via Isaac and Rebekah. These tribes are listed in Genesis 46:8; Ezekiel 48:2 and Revelation 7:5.

Esau took the stigmata in the flesh on the eighth day of his birth or he would have been rejected from the covenant community of the Israelite faith. [Genesis 17:10-14] If Esau were not included in the covenant of faith he would have been expelled while an infant, because of not having the 'sign of the covenant.'

Esau could never become part of the Twelve tribes of Israel because he lost the birthright and the blessing from Isaac, and God moved Esau to the landmass called, Edom. It must have been very hurtful for Esau to know he would never become one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Lord's sovereign election was to prefer the younger son, Jacob. The lineage of Esau came to be known as Edomites. Esau made a family and eventually his lineage became a neighbor, if you will, of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The twelve tribes of Israel would always stand head and shoulders over the sons and daughters of the Edomites.

Jacob had two children, each from maids who were servants of Rachael and Leah. Bilhah birthed Dan and Naphtali, and Zilpah brought into this world Gad and Asher. These four sons made up the tribes that were not from his wives Leah and Rachael and, therefore, could not beget further down the line, the promised Messiah and son, Jesus. From the time of Jacob until the birth of Christ was about 2,000 years. The Lord did not condone this kind of iniquitous behavior, but it did happen within the Hebrew nation. Take note that Jesus was not born from the hand-maidens, because the Lord God frowned on this activity.

Jesus was born of the Tribe of Judah which means, Yehuwda, yehhoodaw, in the Hebrew meaning ‘celebrated.' God sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau as to who would receive the greater materialistic blessings, but more importantly, the greatest of all earthly honors being the progenitor of the future Messiah coming via the consanguinity of Jacob. Leah, through her godly union with Jacob and his future, distant, sacred stock, made possible, the conception of Jesus through the virgin Mary.

Hebrews 11:20 reminds us that Isaac blessed both Jacob and Esau ‘ . . . concerning things to come.' The reality of this blessing as to ‘things to come' is meant to signify, that at a future time under a ‘better covenant,' the Israelites would continue to receive the adoption, the glory, the covenant, the giving of the Law, the service of God and the everlasting promises of God. [Romans 9:1-5 & Hebrews 8:8-12] In the last reference God will again bless the Israelite people during the Millinimum, when He will have concluded the Old covenant of Law, {Heb. 8:7a} and the New covenant of grace. {Heb. 8:7b. In verse 8 He will have ‘found fault' and will have concluded both of these covenants. The covenant of the Millinimum starts with vs. 8 saying, ‘Behold, the days come . . . ' (which was future to where they were standing--while in the covenant of grace at that time).

Dr. Merrill C. Tenney concurs with the idea that Esau and Jacob were children of God. Here is his statement. ‘Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father' (Heb. 11:20). (from Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary)

The word hated, {emisnsa}, in the Greek can mean ‘to love less.' In this way God, speaking through the Apostle Paul, offered this truth. ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I loved less.'

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Hebrews 11:20 indicates that both Esau and Jacob were covenant believers, otherwise why would God have moved the writer to say that 'Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.' He clearly is speaking about their spiritual inheritance when their lives were over. We do remember that these two men lived hundreds of years before the writing of the Book of Hebrews.

Click to expand...

So where is the part of Hebrews 11 where Esau is said to have faith? You just don't get it Ray. We are committed to what Scripture says. Not what you would like it to say or what you think it should say. You say he is clearly speaking about their spiritual inheritance. Scripture clearly says that people who have a lifestyle like Esau's have no spiritual inheritance (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21). When will you subject your theology to Scripture? This matter of Esau is not that important. But it illustrates a larger point -- how much of your theology is in spite of Scripture and not because of it.

You aren't trying to force a position on someone are you?? Did you read the above?? It clearly says "by which is meant not positive hatred." You do not have the option to change the author's words. He said that is not what he meant. Therefore, regardless of what you might think, it is not positive hatred to him. And by the way, he is right so far as there is a distinction between positive and negative. Whatever the point, it is a wellbased hatred because it is God's constitutional reaction against that which is not like him.

Click to expand...

Not trying to "force" it on him. Just showing the double standard. You all claim God ultimately condemns them because they are "sinners", and "sin" is what is here being associated with "positive hatred". Once again, the problem is that your brand of Calvinism has modified the original position to remove its full implications (God's positive hatred of the non elect, and decreeing them to Hell). I am not forcing anything. That is the premise in its pure and original form, from the mouth of Calvin himself and others.

"If men will pronounce the character of God unamiable, because he is just, and dooms sinful beings to hopeless misery, they prove thereby that they do not love the God whom the Scriptures reveal, and by whom they are to be judged. Their quarrel with the doctrine of election is, in truth, a quarrel with the justice of God, from which that election has not delivered them."

- John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, pp. 520-521.

Click to expand...

Is this suggesting that anyone (Christians included) who disagrees with this concept of election is not saved? Of course, Calvinists who do affirm God's positive hatred to all the non-elect might say the same thing about the softened down version of Calvinism that denies that. (e.g. "denies sovereignty just as much as the Arminians", etc.)

Eric,

I think you would have a hard time showing much evidence that God passing over the non-elect is some sort of watered down version of Calvinism.

Historic Calvinism has never claimed that God is active in reprobation in the same way that He is active in saving.

[ August 06, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

Pastor Larry,

Jacob had a lifestyle of deception to the point where he took the blessing and the inheritance from Hell-bound Esau, {according to your belief}. Jacob practiced deception and then by your standard, is also fit for Hell. Only a limited concept of sin would make people believe that only 'fornication' is the important sin to overcome. Jacob's sinful, deception changed Esau's life all around for the worse. Jacob forged ahead, through his sins of deception, and became the 'son of promise.' If God is just/fair both men should have entered the gates of destruction.

Because of the caliber of Dr. Merrill C. Tenney you should know, by now, that many other reliable theologians believe that both men were sons of the covenant. My view is not a private interpretation.

Historic Calvinism has never claimed that God is active in reprobation in the same way that He is active in saving.

Click to expand...

Maybe not the "same way", but people lately have been making it sound as if He weren't involved in reprobation at all. ("they 'did it to themselves' with their 'free choice'").

I caught the impression that some hybrid, Calvinists believe that God merely lets sinners continue in their sinful ways, and then makes them responsible for their fate. With no choice offered, I do not see how a just and fair God could hold them responsible for their final step into Hell.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
With no choice offered

Click to expand...

Ray,

How is anyone who hears that one must repent and believe not offered a choice? If they repent and believe then there is clear evidence of regeneration and they are saved.

God is not preventing anyone from repenting and believing, despite your reductionist attitude toward Spurgeonism.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If God is just/fair both men should have entered the gates of destruction.

Click to expand...

There you go, Ray, the creature judging his Creator. We are all deserving of hell, Ray, unless God intervenes in our lives and gives us new life in Christ Jesus. He did so in Jacob's life but not in Esau's, and you just can't seem to get over it because God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done.

Trust God, Ray, trust God.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

Ken Hamilton,

You are the first Calvinist that I know of who believes that the non-elect have a choice so much so that they could have been saved.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You are the first Calvinist that I know of who believes that the non-elect have a choice so much so that they could have been saved.

Click to expand...

I'll take that as a compliment.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

Ken,

Was Esau circumcised and was he a son of the covenant?

Ray,

That verse in Heb 11 you keep referring to???? Where is it?

I know your interpretation is not private. The problem is it is contrary to biblical revelation. You want to talk about Jacob but that is not the point. He is described as having faith and apparently repented of his sins. The elect do that you know.

The point is the text of Scripture. You should abide by it rather than Tenney or anyone else.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Was Esau circumcised and was he a son of the covenant?

Click to expand...

Just because one was circumcised, it does not mean he was saved. Are you saying everyone who descended from Abraham and Isaac that was circumcised was saved?

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org