Is this the Arminian Stumper?

Two things any Bible person can do.

Look up the reason that God hated Esau. We must keep the context of the OT as Paul specifically chooses to use those words. (Hint: Look up the first verses of Malachi. You'll see that the name "Esau" isn't referring to a specific person, but a nation - the nation Edom.) Decide whether God hated Esau (the nation Edom) "just because" or if it was for another reason.

Second, find out the occurances of God being called the potter. We see Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul all talking about the potter. There are specific ideas that God is the potter and we are the clay in Isaiah. HOWEVER, in Jeremiah, we see this: "5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." Hmm... So is the clay completely powerless? According to the Word, the clay is not.

So can we please dispense with the "God hated Esau" and "the clay means that God chooses individuals" ideas, since the passages don't really mean what the Calvinist camp says they mean?

 

I think you have me confused with seomeone else. I do not even believe the term free will makes sense, let alone the idea that we have it. IMO it's easy to prove there is no free will by our condition (that is, free of any bias). If you truly have free will, you are free to will only good. So use your free will to decide this day never to have another sinful, lustful, covetous, etc., thought again for the rest of your life. And if that's too easy for you, then decide of your own free will, just to prove it's possible, that you are going to trust your left sock with your eternal destiny.

Let me know how you do.

 

Considering some of the things Jacob did, I still wonder about that, sometimes.

 

Okay, let's let the text speak:

So far the LORD is talking about Jacob and Esau, the brothers. And because the LORD hated Esau, He turned his mountains into a wasteland. Then the text goes on to say...

So there's a connection between Esau and Edom, but what happened to Edom was a result of God hating Esau.

I have no idea how you can possibly reinterpret the above text to assume that "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" somehow does not actually refer to Esau the person, but Edom the place. To quote Barry the Bear, that's some weird wiggy mojo.

 

You are accurately reflecting what was going on in Genesis, but seriously misrepresenting how it is used in Romans. Romans 9 is most definitely talking about election wrt salvation, and uses Jacob and Esau as an illustration that God elects according to His own will, and not according to anything good or bad we will or do.

If you stopped there, you could make a case for it being only about the line of the Messiah. But the text doesn't stop there (nor did it begin there, which is also significant).

Already you can see this has nothing to do with the natural line of the Messiah. What does "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy" have to do with that? What does Pharoah have to do with that? But it gets better...

Blame us for what? Not being of the natural line of the Messiah?

Romans 9 is most definitely part of a long argument that is making the case for election in salvation.

 

Nah. That's just the preconceived notion you brought to the text.

 

You can't find salvation in that whole chapter. And it certainly isn't dealing with Jacob and esau as individuals and it does not say..

"the elder shall be lost and the younger shall be saved"

 

Shilo,

Your post is exactly correct, and not the ragged thoughts of Augustine or Calvin. We will give due credit for Augustine and John Calvin being quasi-theologians for Roman Catholics and Reformation Calvinists.

Esau should have been the lineage leading to our holy Christ and His virgin birth, but God ordained it that He would be born of the seed of Jacob's line. Nothing in the Bible can point to a 'pick and choose' philosophy/theology.

Some could care less to study the 'What if God . . .' found in Romans 9:22. Hypothetically, He could have saved some and damned multiple billions of souls at His will and desire, but He did not do this.

 

It is a serious error to think that salvation is not in view in Romans 9.

A brief outline of the chapter shows this (from "Romans", D. Moo, NICNT, Eerdmans, 1996, p. 554):

"9:1-5- Introduction fo the issue Paul seeks to reslove: the Jews failure to embrace the gospel (vv.1-3) calls into question the value of the privileges and promises God has given to them.

9:6-29- Defense of the proposition in 6a - "the word of God has not failed." Paul argues that God's word never promised salvation to all the biological descendants of Abraham (9:6b-13). Salvation is never a birthright, even for Jews, but always a gift of God's eelcting love (vv. 14-230, a gift he is free to bestow on Gentiles as well as Jews (vv. 24-29)."

See, the very reason Romans 9 comes up at all is because of salvation, specifically of the Gentiles. The historical fact of salvation of Gentiles and the rejection of Jesus by Jews creates a theological tension which Paul addresses in these chapters. Pauls' argument particularly in Romans 9-11 is one of salvation history. Tthere is simply no way to omit salvation from the discussion.

As to the argument that the example of Esau and Jacob are about nations and not individuals, Moo concedes that "the OT verses Paul cites do not clearly refer to the eternal destiny of the individuals concerned." (Moo, 571)

Yet Moo finds three compelling reason to say that "however [Paul] understands the original meaning of these texts, he applies them here to the issue of individual salvation." (571, and for what follows see 571,572)

(1) His argument requires such an application. Paul must explain why some Israelites in his own day are being saved and why others are not (vv.3-5); to justify the assertion that only some from 'among Israel' are truly Israel (v.6b).A discussion of the role of individuals or peoples in salvation history simply does not meet the point Paul needs to make.

(2) Key words in the paragraph- "children of God
(v.8), descendants (vv.7 and 8), "counted (v.8), "children of promise" (v.8), "name" or "call" (vv7,12), and "not of works" (v.12) - are consitnetly applied by Paul elsewhere to the salvation of individuals.

(3) The continuation of vv. 6b-13 in vv. 24-29 shows that Paul's point is to dmonstrate how God has called individuals from among both Jews and Gentiles to be his people and that those Jews who are called (the "Israel" within Israel of vv. 6b-13) consitute the "remnant" that will be "saved" (v.27).

 

It is an even greater error to think that salvation is universal, meaning that because Jesus died for the sins of the world that all mankind are saved.

And a still greater error to think that Salvation is anything but a 'unique-to-each-individual' condition based on the Belief of the individual. That is God does not save the masses, but he does save the individual among the masses.

 

No calvanist holds to universalism. It is Arminianism that tends towards that.

Your second paragraph also says nothing against Calvanism.

But even if it did, given that you are making assertions it would not impact a detailed and corroborated presentation (source provided).

Seems that you are arguing in favour of calvanism now!

 

Samuel,

It is absolutely necessary that the arminians do a bait and switch on the question.

What are they to say? That they choose to believe while others don't because of opportunity? That would make God a respcter of persons, the very thing they argue (wrongly) Calvanism does.

Are they going to say that they were convinced? What is it abou them that they should be convinced and not others? Are they smarter? Wiser? That too would make God a respecter of persons.

Are they going to say that God worked particuarly hard on them? That would be to move in the direction of effectual call and calvanism.

So they really only have two options: they admit that in their system, God is a respecter of persons, or they start to argue for Calvanism.

 

Because, he's inserting an example showing God's plan (how He hardened a gentile leader for the sake of the Jews, to show that He can now harden the Jews for the sake of the gentiles.
("wrath" and "mercy" are not necessarily eternal states of damnation or salvation, but can occur on earth, which is the context of what God is doing all this to "show" people.)

Still, a group can be blinded, and yet individuals still get saved out of it.

"Hate" means "love less" (as in "hate tour mother and father")

The bold points to the nation after him as being the ones who suffered this.

I myself don't argue that "God did not hate Esau [at all]" (especially given the definition of hate as "love less"). But this in itself still cannot be used to teach eternal reprobation of individuals.

Yes, but still, that doesn't mean both cases of "election" are to salvation and damnation. God sovereignly "chooses" other things (on earth) as well.

No, he's talking about the blinding of Israel, and this shows that while the nation is blind, the individuals can still either repent, or use God's blindness of the nation as an excuse for themselves.

True, but once again, that does not mean every example used in the argument is salvation and damnation.

It's showing that salvation is on an individual basis, rather than national. The reason why some Isralites were being saved and others not was because the majority were trusting in inheritance as well as the Law(v.32), not because they were deliberately "passed over" or reprobated.

 

Eric,

No one is arguing for double predestination.

Thank you thouhg for acknowledging that Romans 9 deals with the election of individuals to salvation.

Truly it is about grace not race. But that proves the calvanist point, it does not diminish it.

 

Samuel,

You have a great name and a Biblical one. My uncle's name was Samuel.

It sounds like you lean toward a Calvinistic persuasion so my post probably won't convince you.

"Is This The Arminian Stumper?" page 1 January 20th--- time: 3:44. My post starts with the words, 'The infinity of God's love . . .' Paragraph 2,3, and 4 is at least a partial answer to your question, "Why did you choose Christ while others reject Him?"

The soil indicates that different sinners in their lives/hearts have various reasons why they reject Christ. Rebellion is the general reason why the majority turn away from Him. There are as many reasons for remaining an unbeliever as there are sins. His last invitation before the close of the canon was offered to any sinner/all sinners. The Holy Spirit, the bride/church extend the offer to all lost people.

I would love to hear a Reformed Baptist preacher expound on Matthew 13:3-8.

My regards,
Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

It isn't that hard Ray.

In each case the soil produces a harvest completely in keeping with its character. There is only one soil that actually propduces the harvest. The other three are all ones that do not produce a harvest.

Now this is the Reformed position exactly. People only act according to their nature. Those who have the right soil (heart) produce the fruit. That indicates that the right soil represents the elect.