Does choosing Christ please God?

[Rippon]

In man of course that he is so special that God chose him and not the others.

So why would elect people ( saved , if the word 'elect' throws you for a loop ) boast in themselves ? They are the ones who know of their lowly status before God . They know of their total depravity ( all-pervasive moral corruption ) . How dare they brag ! They are eternally grateful to the Lord for His sovereign mercy which He did not have to extend to any .

 

[Timtoolman]

So why would elect people ( saved , if the word 'elect' throws you for a loop ) boast in themselves ? They are the ones who know of their lowly status before God . They know of their total depravity ( all-pervasive moral corruption ) . How dare they brag ! They are eternally grateful to the Lord for His sovereign mercy which He did not have to extend to any .

Brother do you think it is any different for those that chose? I guess I am rejecting more the fact that again a calvinist has judged the hearts of others who disagree with them. By trying to say that my belief takes the high road, and your doesn't is most likely pride and not langauge profitable to help someone see the truth. I don't really believe my calvinist brother believes they are special. I was just wording it back at the calvinist who claim that those who believe that God calls and we must answer is not us taking claim that we had any part in the work of salvation. Salvation was all of the Father and the Son.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Brother do you think it is any different for those that chose? I guess I am rejecting more the fact that again a calvinist has judged the hearts of others who disagree with them. By trying to say that my belief takes the high road, and your doesn't is most likely pride and not langauge profitable to help someone see the truth. I don't really believe my calvinist brother believes they are special. I was just wording it back at the calvinist who claim that those who believe that God calls and we must answer is not us taking claim that we had any part in the work of salvation. Salvation was all of the Father and the Son.

Then it should be easy for you to answer what the difference was between you and one who would never believe. My answer is that God is the one who made the difference, not my choice. If you exercise your will to be born again, then what do you do with John 1:13? " who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

There are two questons for you to answer.
1. What was different about you?
2. Did an exercise of your will cause you to be born again?

 

[Timtoolman]

I'll pass brother

Reformed, I was just making a pt that we can make charges on what we percieve is in the hearts of other men who disagree with us. I have stated many times on here, and scripturally, what the Bible says about us choosing. I do not wish right now to go around in circles with you at this time. I was hoping that maybe we could tone done the rhetoric a bit.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Reformed, I was just making a pt that we can make charges on what we percieve is in the hearts of other men who disagree with us. I have stated many times on here, and scripturally, what the Bible says about us choosing. I do not wish right now to go around in circles with you at this time. I was hoping that maybe we could tone done the rhetoric a bit.

Tone down the rhetoric? What tone? I was simply responding to your response. This is a Baptist DEBATE forum.

 

[Timtoolman]

Tone down the rhetoric? What tone? I was simply responding to your response. This is a Baptist DEBATE forum.

Not you. Referring

 

[LaymansTermsPlease]

Anything we receive in exchange for something we offer (belief and obedience) is wages, a trade. We contributed something, it's not a gift.

Long-time lurker, infrequent poster, so let me open with a disclaimer about how worthless my points probably are.... I'm just a regular layman, IANAPT (I am not a professional theologian)

but from what I can see, Romans 4 doesn't seem to agree that belief results in "wages" owed as you contend above. It differentiates between works that require wages (debt owed) and belief.

Romans 4:4 speaks of "not reckoned of grace but of debt" talking about wages...something owed for work done.

Verse 5: Belief is not works. Don't do works, but rather believe. Your faith because of your belief will be counted for righteousness since you "worketh not but believeth on Him".

It all seems to clearly say that works and belief are different and that belief does not incur obligation on God's part as if it were some kind of "work" we had done.

(Rom 4:2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
(Rom 4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[webdog]

For being an IANAPT (like myself ), you hit the nail on the head, IMO. :thumbs:

PS. Cool hair! I always wanted to sport a 'hawk, but the wife would not approve

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Long-time lurker, infrequent poster, so let me open with a disclaimer about how worthless my points probably are.... I'm just a regular layman, IANAPT (I am not a professional theologian)

but from what I can see, Romans 4 doesn't seem to agree that belief results in "wages" owed as you contend above. It differentiates between works that require wages (debt owed) and belief.

Romans 4:4 speaks of "not reckoned of grace but of debt" talking about wages...something owed for work done.

Verse 5: Belief is not works. Don't do works, but rather believe. Your faith because of your belief will be counted for righteousness since you "worketh not but believeth on Him".

It all seems to clearly say that works and belief are different and that belief does not incur obligation on God's part as if it were some kind of "work" we had done.

(Rom 4:2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
(Rom 4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Although you claim to be an IANAPT, it looks to me like you got it right. "Belief [faith] is not works."

The simple rule of Bible interpretation is, "When the plain statement of Scripture makes sense, do not try to make it say something else."

See my commentary of the Romans 4:1-12

http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 31.pdf
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 32.pdf
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 33.pdf

 

[just-want-peace]

The simple rule of Bible interpretation is, "When the plain statement of Scripture makes sense, do not try to make it say something else."

A great big double-dipped AMEN!!!!

Sure would be a lot less un-necessary palaverin' & jawin' on this BB if this practice were followed!!

I always kinda figured that God knew what He wanted to say, and how He wanted to say it, so I tend to just let the Word speak for itself!

 

[Rippon]

The simple rule of Bible interpretation is, "When the plain statement of Scripture makes sense, do not try to make it say something else."

I agree . Fore example Romans 9:13 : " Just as it is written : "Jacob I loved , but Esau I hated."

That's a plain staement of Scripture meaning what it says , not some perversion like "but Esau have I loved less.'

 

[webdog]

I agree . Fore example Romans 9:13 : " Just as it is written : "Jacob I loved , but Esau I hated."

That's a plain staement of Scripture meaning what it says , not some perversion like "but Esau have I loved less.'

Hint: when you see "just as it is written"...it helps to go back and see just as it is written and the context for both texts (dealing with Israel CLEARLY)

Using your model..."...there is no God"

Your problem is also with what "hate" means, and what you want it to mean.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Calvinism (and hyper-Calvinists) takes Romans 9 out of the Old Testament context from which much of the chapter is quoted. This is because Calvinism (born out of Augustinianism) is primarily deductive in its methodology instead of inductive. An inductive methodology interprets (exegetes) a particular portion or verse of Scripture from the context of the whole of the Bible. Whenever a New Testament portion of the Bible quotes from the Old Testament, the New Testament portion must be understood from the context of its original use (the Law of First Mention). This is because God is immutable (unchanging) and consistent in truth. God may change the way His governance is to be administrated in the world (stewardship) under various dispensations, but His truth is unchanging.


Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3 when he states, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Malachi 1:2-3 are the only place in the Bible where this “is written.”

“ The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel” (Malachi 1:1-5).

From the context of these verses, it is obvious that God is NOT referring to individuals (Jacob and Esau), but to the nations that descended from them. The word “you” of verse two refers to the nation of Israel (v1). When God speaks of Jacob, He is referring to the nation of Israel (v5; the descendents of Jacob). When God speaks of Esau, He is referring to the nation of Edom (v4; the descendents of Esau). As twin sons of Isaac, Jacob and Esau had both the same genetic roots as well as the same spiritual roots. Foreknowing the choices these men would make in life and their resulting descendants, God chose (elected) the DESCENDANCY of Jacob (Israel) through which Messiah would be born. This is the exact meaning of “elect according to foreknowledge.”

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied” (I Peter 1:1-2).

The word “elect” here refers to a group, not individuals. The group is “the strangers scattered” in the dispersion due to the persecution of the Church. A. T. Robertson states[FONT=&quot][1]http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1: [/FONT]

“To the elect (eklektoiv). Without article . . . and dative case, “to elect persons” (viewed as a group).”

The fact that nations, not individuals, are the point in question is further supported by God’s own statement to Rebekah as she carried the twins in her womb.

“And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them” (Genesis 25:21-26).

There is no evidence in history or in Scripture where Esau ever served Jacob. The statement, “the elder shall serve the younger” is obviously connected to the statement “two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people.” The context is nations, not individuals. It is only by imposing the false suppositions of Calvinism on these portions of Scripture that salvation is made the subject of election in these texts. That is eisegesis not exegesis.


This is further supported by the fact that it was Jacob that later was call Israel by God due to his personal conversion as detailed in Genesis 32:24-30.

“And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24-30).

From this day forward Israel became synonymous with the name Jacob and the God of Jacob came to be known as the God of Israel because of an altar that Jacob built at the city of Shalem (shaw-lame’), which would later become the city of Jerusalem.

“And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city. And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for an hundred pieces of money. And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel” (Genesis 33:18-20).

The word “Elelohe-Israel” (ale el-o-hay’ yis-raw-ale’) means the mighty God of Israel. This is the first record of a patriarch actually owning property in Canaan (the Promised Land) and connects Israel to that land for ever.


Secondly, it is obvious from Malachi chapter one (that Paul is quoting in Romans chapter nine) that salvation is not the issue in question. Therefore, neither is salvation the issue in question in Romans chapter nine. The issue is what constitutes true Israel as opposed to national Israel. True Israel is not just a matter of genealogical connection to Abraham, but a spiritual connection. The connecting link is not that they had the same blood lines (consanguineous), but that they had the same faith in the “promise” of God.


It is clear from God’s statement to Rebekah in Genesis 25:21-26 (“the elder shall serve the younger”) that SERVICE is the subject of the text; not salvation. There is absolutely no mention of either Jacob’s salvation or Esau’s salvation. The idea is that the descendents of Jacob would be the line of Messiah’s birth, not Esau. God’s choice (election) of Jacob (Israel) was not due to qualities found in Jacob. That is clearly stated in Romans 9:11; “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.” God’s choice was purely upon His “purpose” in maintaining a godly line through which Messiah could be born. He chose Jacob out of the two brothers and interceded in his life in special ways and communication to insure that “purpose.”
[FONT=&quot]
Therefore, by comparison, God “loved” Jacob and “hated” Esau. There was special mercy and intervention in Jacob’s life to insure God’s “purpose.” That did not happen to Esau or to others of the millions on the face of the earth at that time. Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume VI, General Epistles and Revelation; Baker Book House

 

[tonyhipps]

originally posted by npetreley

Assume for the sake of argument that free-willism (semi-pelagianism) is true, and we are offered salvation and choose to accept or reject it.

I ask free-willers, did your act of accepting please God?

Your mistake is that you don't know the scriptures Matt. 29:27

“Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant on the lookout for choice pearls. then he discovered a pearl of great value, he sold everything he owned and bought it! Matthew 13:45-46

God is the merchant we are the pearls.

 

[J.D.]

Calvinism (and hyper-Calvinists) takes Romans 9 out of the Old Testament context from which much of the chapter is quoted. This is because Calvinism (born out of Augustinianism) is primarily deductive in its methodology instead of inductive. An inductive methodology interprets (exegetes) a particular portion or verse of Scripture from the context of the whole of the Bible. Whenever a New Testament portion of the Bible quotes from the Old Testament, the New Testament portion must be understood from the context of its original use (the Law of First Mention). This is because God is immutable (unchanging) and consistent in truth. God may change the way His governance is to be administrated in the world (stewardship) under various dispensations, but His truth is unchanging.


Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3 when he states, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Malachi 1:2-3 are the only place in the Bible where this “is written.”

“ The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel” (Malachi 1:1-5).

From the context of these verses, it is obvious that God is NOT referring to individuals (Jacob and Esau), but to the nations that descended from them. The word “you” of verse two refers to the nation of Israel (v1). When God speaks of Jacob, He is referring to the nation of Israel (v5; the descendents of Jacob). When God speaks of Esau, He is referring to the nation of Edom (v4; the descendents of Esau). As twin sons of Isaac, Jacob and Esau had both the same genetic roots as well as the same spiritual roots. Foreknowing the choices these men would make in life and their resulting descendants, God chose (elected) the DESCENDANCY of Jacob (Israel) through which Messiah would be born. This is the exact meaning of “elect according to foreknowledge.”

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied” (I Peter 1:1-2).

The word “elect” here refers to a group, not individuals. The group is “the strangers scattered” in the dispersion due to the persecution of the Church. A. T. Robertson states[FONT=&quot][1]http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1: [/FONT]

“To the elect (eklektoiv). Without article . . . and dative case, “to elect persons” (viewed as a group).”

The fact that nations, not individuals, are the point in question is further supported by God’s own statement to Rebekah as she carried the twins in her womb.

“And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them” (Genesis 25:21-26).

There is no evidence in history or in Scripture where Esau ever served Jacob. The statement, “the elder shall serve the younger” is obviously connected to the statement “two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people.” The context is nations, not individuals. It is only by imposing the false suppositions of Calvinism on these portions of Scripture that salvation is made the subject of election in these texts. That is eisegesis not exegesis.


This is further supported by the fact that it was Jacob that later was call Israel by God due to his personal conversion as detailed in Genesis 32:24-30.

“And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24-30).

From this day forward Israel became synonymous with the name Jacob and the God of Jacob came to be known as the God of Israel because of an altar that Jacob built at the city of Shalem (shaw-lame’), which would later become the city of Jerusalem.

“And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city. And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for an hundred pieces of money. And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel” (Genesis 33:18-20).

The word “Elelohe-Israel” (ale el-o-hay’ yis-raw-ale’) means the mighty God of Israel. This is the first record of a patriarch actually owning property in Canaan (the Promised Land) and connects Israel to that land for ever.


Secondly, it is obvious from Malachi chapter one (that Paul is quoting in Romans chapter nine) that salvation is not the issue in question. Therefore, neither is salvation the issue in question in Romans chapter nine. The issue is what constitutes true Israel as opposed to national Israel. True Israel is not just a matter of genealogical connection to Abraham, but a spiritual connection. The connecting link is not that they had the same blood lines (consanguineous), but that they had the same faith in the “promise” of God.


It is clear from God’s statement to Rebekah in Genesis 25:21-26 (“the elder shall serve the younger”) that SERVICE is the subject of the text; not salvation. There is absolutely no mention of either Jacob’s salvation or Esau’s salvation. The idea is that the descendents of Jacob would be the line of Messiah’s birth, not Esau. God’s choice (election) of Jacob (Israel) was not due to qualities found in Jacob. That is clearly stated in Romans 9:11; “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.” God’s choice was purely upon His “purpose” in maintaining a godly line through which Messiah could be born. He chose Jacob out of the two brothers and interceded in his life in special ways and communication to insure that “purpose.”
[FONT=&quot]
Therefore, by comparison, God “loved” Jacob and “hated” Esau. There was special mercy and intervention in Jacob’s life to insure God’s “purpose.” That did not happen to Esau or to others of the millions on the face of the earth at that time. Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume VI, General Epistles and Revelation; Baker Book House

There's a fancy word for this but I can't remember it - you're disproving your premise with your own arguments. Carefully read what you've written and you'll see that.

 

[J.D.]

originally posted by npetreley



Your mistake is that you don't know the scriptures Matt. 29:27

“Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant on the lookout for choice pearls. then he discovered a pearl of great value, he sold everything he owned and bought it! Matthew 13:45-46

God is the merchant we are the pearls.

Npet's not here to defend himself but I'll venture to say that somewhere in his studies he must have come across Matthew chapter 29 at least once.

The point is this:

"So then they that are in the flesh can not please God"
"Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you"
"now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"

How can you reconcile these verses? If a person is regenerated AFTER they "choose Christ", then that means that they pleased God while still in the flesh, which contradicts the scripture that says that they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But if we allow that regeneration takes place BEFORE we "choose Christ", then it makes sense - we do please God in the holy act of receiving Christ, because of regeneration we ARE "in the Spirit" already.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

There's a fancy word for this but I can't remember it - you're disproving your premise with your own arguments. Carefully read what you've written and you'll see that.

Carefully read what I've written? Now that is a new one! Let the Scriptures speak for themselves. What argument are you referring to? I was just emphasizing the obvious.

 

[JustChristian]

Assume for the sake of argument that free-willism (semi-pelagianism) is true, and we are offered salvation and choose to accept or reject it.

I ask free-willers, did your act of accepting please God?

I don't claim to be a semi-pelagianist but yes, God is pleased when someone is saved.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Jarthur001]

Calvinism (and hyper-Calvinists) takes Romans 9 out of the Old Testament context...

Really? lets see.

Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3 when he states, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Malachi 1:2-3 are the only place in the Bible where this “is written.”

Not really.

Malachi comes from 4 other passage.

2(A) "I have loved you," says the LORD.

Deuteronomy 7:8
8but(A) it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping(B) the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

2 (B) But you say, "How have you loved us?" <<<<key to understanding
I'll get to this later.


2 (C) "Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet(D) I have loved Jacob

Obadiah 1:10
10For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.

Amos 1:11
11Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:

Notice in 2 B there is a reason. It was asked.."How have you loved us?"
This was asked to God. Now the reason given must be the truth.

How have you loved us??

Well...You guys are brothers and I hate your brother and I love you. If you word this any other way it does not add up. The proof of Gods love was in his hate. Sorry...but that is what God says.

But notice this please....

How long was this to last? Notice in the verses about it was forever. humm

and please notice it is said again in this passage...

4If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'"

They say...I will build back.
God said...I will tear you down...again

God says...I will do this....FOREVER!!!!!

Let me ask you about salvation. Does God save in groups or by each person need to believe on their own?

If a nation...which BTW what does the Hebrew word "gowy" mean?

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Can you name me one nation that does not have people? Was the land elect? No it was people.

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;

The reason....is based on who calls.

Rom 11:29
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

You said...

There is no evidence in history or in Scripture where Esau ever served Jacob. The statement, “the elder shall serve the younger” is obviously connected to the statement “two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people.” The context is nations, not individuals. It is only by imposing the false suppositions of Calvinism on these portions of Scripture that salvation is made the subject of election in these texts. That is eisegesis not exegesis.

Lets talk about context. This statement above is uncalled for. Do you not believe Gods Word? Even if I can not find a passage to support this was done at some point in history, I still must believe it. But as it turns out...the Bible says this very thing. Check it out...

2 Sam 8: 14

And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.

Please notice this verse too....Ob 18

And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went

Hummmm

 

[J.D.]

Carefully read what I've written? Now that is a new one! Let the Scriptures speak for themselves. What argument are you referring to? I was just emphasizing the obvious.

Dr. Ketchum,

(underlines added by me)

You said: “From the context of these verses, it is obvious that God is NOT referring to individuals (Jacob and Esau), but to the nations that descended from them.”

Then you said: “Jacob is the positive example of God’s special intervention in the life of one man to insure His purpose.”

“One man” refers to an individual, does it not?

Also, let’s apply your template to another verse in the passage and see if it works:

v22 “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the [nations] of wrath fitted to destruction:

v23 “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the [nations] of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,”

Which nations are fitted to destruction, and which nations are fitted to glory? Who are the nations of mercy?

v24 “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Which nation is the “us” nation, which was called? I hope I am a citizen of that nation.

Or does he call individuals? I think so. “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified… Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.”


Again, you said: “Secondly, it is obvious from Malachi chapter one (that Paul is quoting in Romans chapter nine) that salvation is not the issue in question.”

And then you said: “The issue is what constitutes true Israel as opposed to national Israel. True Israel is not just a matter of genealogical connection to Abraham, but a spiritual connection. The connecting link is not that they had the same blood lines (consanguineous), but that they had the same faith in the “promise” of God”.

Isn’t the “spiritual connection, i.e. “faith in the promise of God”, all about salvation?

Besides that, let’s look further to see if there’s anything in Romans 9 that might indicate that Paul is speaking about salvation:

v3 “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren”

His desire for his brethren is their salvation.

v8a “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:”

i.e., they are not saved.

v8b “but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

i.e. they are saved.

v9 “For this is the word of promise”

i.e. the decree to save the children of promise.

v11 “(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”

– what is “not of works”? Salvation.

v15 “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”

– how are we saved? “but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5)

I could go on, but one more:

v27 “a remnant shall be saved:”

Looks to me like Romans 9 is all about salvation.