Esau I HATED!!!!!

[BobRyan]

Tim 27
"For not all who are descended from Israel(after the flesh) belong to Israel(spiritual)...this means that it is not the children of the flesh who are THE CHILDREN OF GOD, but the childre of the promise are reckoned (counted) as descendants (9:6,8). From among the physical nation Israel, God has elected certain Jews unto salvation. These elect Jews(which only make up a part of national Israel) are the true descendants of Abraham, and they make up the true "Israel of God"(Gal. 6:16)

Agreed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[timothy27]

It was these elect or believing Jews, and to them only, that the promise applied. Although the majority of the Jews were perishing in unbelief in Paul's day, those Jewswhom God had soverignly selected out of the physical nation to be His children were being saved through faith; therfore God's promiseto Abraham (to save his seed)was being fulfilled. So this leads us to Romans 9:9-13 in which Bob says deals with leadership but as you can see when put back into context of the rest of the chapter actually deals with salvation of God's people.

 

[timothy27]

It is not their choices that bring the results!! The results are the way they are because God planned it that way "before they were born", "before either had done good or bad". This is clearly expressed so that we know that it is on God's terms not man's that things are done.

 

[BobRyan]

You are using another circular argument when you say that only to the believers did God give the promise of believing.

If you say only believers are called the children of God.

Or -- only believers are promised eternal life ---

Then you have the Arminian position.

The DEBATE between Arminian and Calvinist views is the Calvinist circular argument that "only believers are given the promise of believing".

God calls ALL to repentance and the Gospel is given to the WORLD - becuase Christ is sent as light into the WORLD enlightening EVERY human as God draws ALL mankind to Himself.

For God so Loved this fallen sinful world of doomed humanity that HE sovereignly chose TO GIVE His only Son..

The Calvinist circular argument downsizes that key Gospel point into "God so loved BELIEVERS that HE gave His Son to die for them ALONE".

AS IF there was a world of BELIEVERS to love - prior to deciding to GIVE Christ (create and offer the Gospel).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[timothy27]

Paul illustrates God's sovereign election of some Jews and rejection of others as heirs of the promise by citing examples from the immediate descendants of Adam. Rom. 9:9-13.

1) Abraham had two sons, Ishmael who was born of Hagar, and Isaac "the son of promise" who, fourteen years later, was born of Sarah. Though both were his sons according to the flesh, the former was rejected (because it was man's attempt to bring about the promise on his own) and the latter was CHOSEN BY GOD to share in the promise made to Abraham, thus clearly showing that God determines who among Abraham's descendants will inherit the blessing. What is this blessing? Not leadership but redemption and salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
It is not their choices that bring the results!!

Lets go back to the starting Context that PAUL gives in his letter to the Romans and SEE how "choice" plays out in this IMPARTIAL system where the IMPARTIAL God calls ALL to repentance.

Rom 2

4 or do you think lightly of the riches of his kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?[/b

.

Vs 4 shows us that the mercy - kindness - grace leads us to repent. This chapter starts with the Gospel basics of God's offer to grant repentance and that all need to repent.

Note: The Context for Romans 2 is STARTING with judgment, AND of the mercy of God that leads to repentance.

Let's continue letting the scripture speak for itself;

Rom2:
5 but because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”. Paul here identifies the “impartial” basis of God’s judgment. Instead of His simply “arbitrarily selecting” some to favor and others to ignore – ALL are judged according to deeds IN the context of the “call to repentance” of vs 4.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Romans 2 - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Rom 2:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Some have supposed that a “judgment” that is impartial as Paul points to in vs 6 and 11 must “only have failing cases”. But Paul shows in vs 7 that such is not the case. The “Good News” does not require God to arbitrarily be “partial to the FEW of Matt 7” as some have supposed. Rather it allows for God to be “impartial” and to SAVE mankind on that basis!

Rom2:
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

Rom2:
9 there will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 for there is no partiality with God.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" because God will “favor the few over the many”. He does not let us suppose that others are lost for doing evil while the “favored” ones do evil and go to heaven. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

But basic to Paul’s solution is the affirmation that God is NOT partial when it comes to the Gospel – when it comes to Salvation. That means that He is NOT favoring the “few” of Matt 7 over the “many” so that He can save the “Few”. Rather – impartiality demands that ALL be given the same salvation-sequence. ALL have the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and ALL have the Drawing of God (John 12:32) and ALL have the Lord Jesus Christ standing at the door and knocking – and ALL have the SAME promise of the New Covenant that “changes the TREE itself” Matt 7 and writes the Law of God on the heart (Heb 8).

Rather than simply “favoring some over others” the system defined above is “impartial” as God HIMSELF is “Impartial”. This Gospel truth was a huge problem for the Jews and is a big problem for Calvinism.


No Partiality – for Christians –

God shows no partiality between unsaved people. (Unsaved Jews vs Unsaved Gentiles)
Acts 10:34
[ Gentiles Hear Good News ] Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,

God shows no partiality in determining who goes to heaven – who is justified.
Romans 2:11
For there is no partiality with God.
Romans 2:10-12 (in Context) Romans 2 (Whole Chapter)

No partiality in God between believers.
Ephesians 6:9
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

We are to SHOW no partiality.
1 Timothy 5:21
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
James 2:1
[ The Sin of Partiality ] My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Many are reading that section of Romans 2:1-11 above for the first time – with eyes open to details.

Notice the "text" perhaps for the first time – as it speaks about our IMPARTIAL God whose process of judging in the matter of salvation (and IN the context of the call to repentance (Rom 2:4)) "results" in some saved and some lost JUST as He describes IN Romans 2...

Rom 2
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Let "the text" speak.

#1. Romans 2 provides BOTH successful and failing cases for BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

#2. Romans 2 SAYS they are ALL judged based on DEEDS and the RESULT of that impartial judgment is that SOME fail and some succeed.

This is devastating to Calvinism.

#3. Romans 3 is IN the GOSPEL CONTEXT of the kindness and goodness of God - and the call to repentance.

This means that WITHIN the Gospel scenario there IS impartial JUDGMENT that results in SOME having eternal life and some not.

#4. Paul declares that the JUDGMENT is "according to my gospel". The judgment he speaks of is part of the Gospe.

#5. The Judgment results in "JUSTIFICATION" according to the text. It does not simply happen in a Gospel VOID where ALL those judged are condemned because of course - ALL are sinners.

#6. The DEEDS mentioned are the same FRUITs of MAtt 7 that Christ shows as "determining" outcoming.

#7 The ENTIRE thing is said to occur in an impartial manner and is GUARANTEED to be impartial because GOD HIMSELF is impartial when it comes to salvation according to Rom 2:11

The "obvious" point in both Romans 2 and Matt 7 is that it is NOT a scenario where God "arbitrarily selects out from among the doomed a few to FAVOR".

Both texts are going out of their way to START within the context of the Gospel and to SHOW that in that context of the goodness of God as our Father - and the call to repentance and forgiveness - WE HAVE a judgment of "deeds" where some fail and some pass.

It is NOT the more "general" case of Romans 3 where ALL are condemned WITHOUT the need for a "future judgment" since ALL have sinned.

Why treat ALL in this way?

ANSWER: Because "God is not partial"??


How then does Calvinism accept this chapter?

ANSWER: It does not.

 

[BobRyan]

Rom2:
12 for all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

Interesting that there are two different systems – one to address those who HAVE scripture and one to address those who do not. But BOTH having the potential outcome of loss or salvation. To this point Paul presents BOTH failing cases AND successful cases.

Paul appears to be in harmony with Christ here as Christ said that those who knew there master's will and did it not receive many lashes but those that did not know the master's will and yet did deeds worthy of punishment - receive few

Luke 12:
47“and that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

Notice that Christ does not assume everyone goes to hell (both those who KNEW the Bible and those who did not) anymore than Paul would make such an absurd statement in Romans 2. Rather the chapter is in context with the call for repentance as noted at the start.

Romans2:
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Having shown us both the group that in the future obtain immortality and the group that in the future suffer the wrath after the future judgment of God - Paul now sums it up - the justification that is future will be for the doers and not for those who are proven to be merely hearers. The test is the same Matt 7 indicator “NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord – but he who DOES” for the good tree produces good fruit.

This is not a fact that Paul then goes on to deny in the rest of the book of Romans. Rather he continues to strongly endorse it (note particularly Romans 6). John McAarthur did an excellent series on this point - titled "the power over sin".

Paul now continues with the succeeding case! Yes that is right! His argument works and he gives a very simple proving case.

Romans2:
14for when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a Law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

There actually were Gentiles that really did not have the Law of God! That is very important to understand. And there were those who did instinctively the things of the Law showing it was written on their heart!! Wow! So that means Paul really was right!

John Macarthur. "God holds all men responsible for their refusal to acknowledge what He has shown them of Himself in His creation. Even those who have NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE GOSPEL have received a clear witness about the existence and character of God- and have suppressed it. If a person will respond to the revelation he has, even if it is solely natural revelation, God will provide some means for that person to hear the gospel." Macarthur Study Bible pg. 1693

Even more interesting is the fact that this terminology regarding "the Law written on the heart" is new covenant terminology. Heb 8, 2Cor 3!!! Yes indeed we have the succeeding case as well as the failing case made in this non-myopic chapter of God's infallible word.

Rom 2
:16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
…
25 for indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 so if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

wow! Apparently the infallible word is telling us that it is gospel - good news that a future judgment, where the Gentiles are shown to be doers of the Law and not merely hearers only, is coming. A future Christ centered judgment!! What a Christ-centered gospel Paul has in this chapter!!

2Cor 5:10

9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
Paul illustrates God's sovereign election of some Jews and rejection of others as heirs of the promise by citing examples from the immediate descendants of Adam. Rom. 9:9-13.

So far - I have not found any Calvinists willing to go through the "unpleasant details" of Romans 9 and respond to what is IN the text that is POINTED OUT as problematic for Calvinism -- but since you seem to be offering...

When we get to the topic of details in Romans 9 and Malachi 1 for Calvinists to diligently avoid it is sometimes best to start with the beginning of Romans 9.

Here is the section of Romans 9 where BOTH NATIONS and Individuals are addressed by Paul.


Romans 9
Solicitude for Israel

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
[/quote]

(Calvinist arguments seem to hope that Paul will soon learn in a minute that God does not actually care for those that are not coming to Christ and neither should he ).

By contrast we see Paul with genuine concern for the lost, the unbelieving, the “wicked” EVEN among God’s CHOSEN people! Why? – Because Paul has been given “The mind of Christ” (1Cor 2) and “walks as Christ walked” (1John 2) with the result that he LOVES as Christ loved “even his enemies” thus showing himself to be a child of the Father (Matt 5) for “God IS LOVE” 1John 4.

It is the heart of God that calls out to all “COME unto ME ALL who are weary “!! It is God that is “NOT willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance” 2Peter 3. It is God that gives his people the “Ministry of reconciliation begging the lost to be reconciled to God” 2Cor 5.

This is not some “fluke” or some “bad trait” of Paul that he will “soon get over” as he learns just how fickle and arbitrary, partial and “unloving” God “really is”!!

Rom 9
4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

In vs 4 and 5 we see the clear distinct explicit and obvious reference to the literal NATION of Israel and their literal national history.

(Here Calvinism seems to hope that Paul will soon learn that God never actually does all that work for those He cares nothing for. Paul will need to pipe down on this point since it appears that God's sovereignly chosen "Holy Nation" and "Royal priesthood" idea did not work)

By contrast the Word of God shows Paul being consistent on this point about the NATION of Israel from Romans 3 to this very point.

Romans 3

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

KEY POINT: THE ONE TRUE Nation Church and the FOREVER promises

To Israel is given the Word of God – The Bible, Scripture.
Isaiah 59 tells us that they were given FOREVER promises of God’s teaching Word and His Holy Spirit.

What a fantastic thought that God would entrust to sinful, faulty man - "the ORACLES of GOD"!! He tells us He sovereignly ordained the Jewish church (the ONE TRUE Church established at Sinai) to perpetuate the teaching of His Word. He did this with FOREVER promises (just as in the case of the New Testament Church) - see
Isaiah 59 for an example of His forever Covenant with this ONE TRUE Hebrew church. A covenant about His Spirit and His Infallible Word.

Isaiah 59

21"As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My Words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever."

That forever covenant was intended to setup the Hebrew church as a teaching NATION church - an evangelizing church (A royal priesthood and holy nation) - the same charter given the church of the New Testament 1 Pet 2:5, 9-10.

Is 61:6 But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God.

Ex 19:5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My £own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

Notice that Paul considers the LITERAL earthly institution of the Hebrew nation church to be LITERALLY given the ORACLES OF GOD - even though they have fallen. No literal church today can claim exemption from the possibility of falling.

Paul BUILDS on his Chapter 2 thesis that contrasts those that REPENT and go to heaven with those that are merely "hearers of the law". His contrast of those that are judged in the future as SHOWING that the Law is written on their heart - vs those that rebel against God.

Romans 3
3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

Paul seems to address the issue of whether or not “God is stuck with Israel” even if they fail – He must continue to use them or declare His promises a failure. OR is there another way?

In his argument he points out that “some did not believe” – he himself is a “believing Jew” as he points out in Phil 3. And so Paul points out that God SAVES at the “individual level” even though the MISSION of evangelism was given at the NATIONAL level.

Romans 9
6But it is not as though the Word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

(Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - Since Calvinist presume that there are no changes - God's sovereign predestined will is being unfolded in history right on schedule. No failures, [no changes to the arbitrary selection process of election. )

By this statement above - that would mean that spiritual Jews are the only ones God was EVER concerned about from the Start. By that logic then (since this still continues to be the case after the cross) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! The SAME principle would just CONTINUE!

Given the Calvinist model - this is simply THE system as given by God - "working as designed" so "no change needed" at the cross. (Unless of course Calvinists want to argue that God was designing the failure of his "Chosen" even though they are the "children of the promise" from day one)!!

So how does the Arminian view fare by comparison in this case? Very well indeed since The Arminian view anticipates/allows "changes" based on the failure of God's own elect/chosen/established church dues to free will. Adam and Eve - failed, and there was "a change" to what God had sovereignly started.

Then Israel (the Hebrew nation church sovereignly started by God) "failed" and there was "another change" whereby the NATION of Israel no longer has the MISSION of evangelism. That falls to the persecuted church of God under the NT model rather than the NATION church of God in the OT model. Yet it is the "faithful" - those that choose belief in God and faith in His promises that remain in all the systems
[/quote]

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 9
9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”

(Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Calvinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.)

Paul shows how from the very beginning man’s interaction with God was based on “promises” that God gives – not promises that man gives God or that man makes God give.

In the first example Paul shows how the simple promise of HAVING children was given.to Rebekah. Rebekah could not “make herself” have children.

In the second example Paul shows how the issue of SERVICE and leadership between the two children was ALSO predetermined by God.

Then

Rom 9
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
[/b]

Good example of God knowing the future in terms of leadership. Just as we see in 1Cor 12 where GIFTS are given selectively and not uniformly. God does NOT claim impartiality in distributing leadership roles or ministry or gifts but DOES claim impartiality when it comes to salvation (Romans 2:10-11)

Key point – vs 12 has to do with LEADERSHIP and minstry roles NOT Salvation and LOVE for God is “impartial” Rom 2:11 when it comes to Salvation.

To argue that the ONLY ones loved are those for whom Christ is a direct descendant is to argue that Joseph was not loved! It is to argue that Levi was not loved! It is to argue that Samuel was not loved! It is to argue that Joshua was not loved! It is to argue that Moses was not Loved!

For just as in the case of having children – we find Rebekah laughing at God. So also in the case of the older SERVING the younger – we find that Jacob’s lot in life was much worse than Esau’s by HIS OWN account

Gen 47:9
9So Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning."

This is the "Summation" Jacob gives. Jacob the one who inherits NOTHING from either Abraham or Isaac.

Jacob who is driven from his home, chased by his father-in-law and hunted by his brother and left wandering in Caanan until rescued by Egypt!

As the Jews said in Fiddler on the Roof "God please let someone ELSE be special for a while".


So this case of God selecting Jacob for a “leadership role” says “nothing” about hating the infant Esau or about God being “partial” when it comes to salvation –(as some Calvinists would have the text “reworked”). Indeed it is not surprising to find Calvinist summarizing a bent view of Romans 9 as “God hated Esau before he was born”.

By contrast this IS an example of God’s choice determining the birthright – rather than man’s “custom”. The birthright could only be given to ONE – it is not an “impartial gift to ALL”. So while in Romans 2:11 we see that I SALVATION God is “impartial” yet in the birthright it is HIS choice of one OVER the other (in spite of culture and tradition that would say the older must be selected OVER the younger) is the rule that stands.

Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate and NOT the Rom 2:11-13 issue of salvation.

The mother is told which Son will be dominant in terms of the birthright - which one will have the blessing. (In the end of course – Esau inherits EVERTYHING Isaac has)
[/quote]

THAT was the section where Calvinists "had hoped" to read "BEfore the infants were Born God said to Rebekkah - Jacob have a loved and Esau have I hated".

Sorry fellas - Not there!

 

[BobRyan]

And finally - we have the favored section where although the context is NO LONGER one of "God speaking to Rebekah" -- we DO find the phrase about Edom and Israel using the terms "Jacob and Esau". The text that Calvinists love to INSERT BACK into the earlier section Where God IS speaking to Rebekah!

Then Paul appeals to the REVEALED history of HOW the two nations related to each other (in Mal 1 where that HISTORY is being reviewed) and uses this a proof that the OLDER served the younger. This ONLY happened in NATIONAL history – as we see from Genesis that Esau NEVER submitted to ANY authority from Jacob. In fact Jacob feared Esau even as an adult and Jacob never got any of the material blessing or inheritance from Abraham OR Isaac – ALL of that went to Esau the PERSON.

Rom 9
13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Here Paul argues that the Malachi 1 statement of God centuries AFTER Jacob and Esau lived – SHOW how the promise about LEADERSHIP given to Jacob worked out at the NATIONAL level (since in fact it did NOT work at the PERSONAL level. Esau never actually served Jacob!!). At the NATIONAL level Edom was never a slave or servant of Israel – but Edom chose rebellion and fell under the “curses” as God defined “The blessings and the curses” in the OT.

What then is the hate quoted in Mal 1?? Are we allowed to “look at the text” and exegete it for its meaning? Yes!

Lets ask some basic questions – and “see the details” in the text of scripture.

How is it that God “hates” those that He claims to love?

We see this in Hosea 9 and 11

Hos 9 Regarding Ephraim
15All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;

Hosea 11
:7 So My people are bent on turning from Me.
Though they call them to the One on high,
None at all exalts Him.
8 How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart is turned over within Me,
All My compassions are kindled.

Here we see God CONTINUING with compassion for those that are doomed! So while He calls this “hate” because the consequence of rebellion is “the curses” according to God’s Word regarding “The Blessings and the Curses” and according to the impartial rule of Romans 2 – Yet IN that context of “the call to repentance” (that we SEE in Romans 2) God continues to love them even though they rebel and are doomed!

Notice Him saying that "ALL His compassions are stirred within Him" over those that supposedly he "hates"??

So is there a parallel between the “Two” classes in Romans 2 (given as context for Romans 9) and the two individuals Jacob and Esau? (Yes).

What about the SAME kind of parallel between the two classes in Romans 2 (given as context for Romans 9) and the two NATIONS represented by Jacob and Esau (as God points out in Mal 1)?? – Yes there is an exact parallel even at the national level.

In the text is God referring to the national history of two nations or to the two infants “before they were born” as many Calvinists would have us believe?

As Christ said "HATE your parents, brothers, sisters and members of your own household - and your own life"...

By comparison to the "LOVE" that you have for Christ.

The hate He speaks of is not the HATE of the one who "hates his brother and is guilty enough to go into hell fire".

It is not the 'hate' that is counter to "LOVE your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

So also in the case of the quote of Malachi 1 that is found in Rom 9:13 –

Malachi 1 is a comment made AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter). There we find Edom (descendants of Esau) called a “wicked nation” and JUST as the “Blessings and Curses” pronounced ON ISRAEL were true impartial “results” of obedience vs rebellion SO in this case – Edom chooses wickedness and calls down upon itself the curses – even from a Loving God.

Malachi 1
1 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob;
3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."[/b]
4 Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the LORD of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever."

The “reason:” Israel doubts God’s statement about “loving Jacob vs Esau” is that it is JACOB that is currently held captive by the Persians at the time this statement is made through Malachi. In fact Israel REMAINS subjugated not only during the time of Persia BUT ALSO during the time of Greece and Rome – which means that “yes” EVEN in Paul’s day in the time of Romans 9 – Israel is STILL held captive by the Romans!!


“Hate” in this case refers to the “wicked nation” that chooses rebellion and invites that list of Curses. It is “hate” as “compared to something”. In the same way SAINTS are told to “HATE” their own families and their own lives as compared to their LOVE for God.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

This is said at the same time that we see in Mark 7 – Christ UPHOLDING the commandment saying that we MUST honor our parents (upheld EVEN in Eph 6:1-3 believe it or not)

In fact Christ has just affirmed the Lev 19:18 law of Moses that we must LOVE our neighbor prior to making this statement about hating our family and our own life.

Luke 10:27
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

So clearly this command to “hate” is “by comparison to something” rather than the genuine hatred of Matt 5

Notice that not ONLY is genuine hatred forbidden – but even “anger” to be “angry with your brother”.

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote.

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

The problem is that Calvinists latch on to something that appears to be useful to the teachings of Calvinism and then cling to a bad theology "no matter what" as they find the Bible does not support such a rendering (rending) of the text.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Indeed – what “hate” is God teaching us here given that we must “LOVE our neighbor as ourselves” and we must “Honor parents”?? Calvinists would have us simply turn a blind eye to this NT definition and cling to the “Calvinist hope” that God really “hated” the infant Esau! And so as already noted some models of Calvinism cling to bad theology "no matter what" they find in the Bible.

 

[timothy27]

2) The example of God's choice between Isaac's twin son's is cited by Paul to show that God alone determines who is to receive his blessings. God's choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau was announced to Rebecca before the twins were born, before they had done anything good or bad, so that all might know that God's choice was not bsaed on man's actions, which you say it did. Many think thatbefore the foundation of the world, God looked down through time and picked out for salvation those whom He saw would repond to Him(i.e. do what was required of them)and that election therfore is based on God's forknowledge of what each individual would do. But Pauls language will not admit of such an interpretation.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul shows how from the very beginning man’s interaction with God was based on “promises” that God gives – not promises that man gives God or that man makes God give.

In the first example Paul shows how the simple promise of HAVING children was given.to Rebekah. Rebekah could not “make herself” have children.

In the second example Paul shows how the issue of SERVICE and leadership between the two children was ALSO predetermined by God.

Then


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 9
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
[/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good example of God knowing the future in terms of leadership. Just as we see in 1Cor 12 where GIFTS are given selectively and not uniformly. God does NOT claim impartiality in distributing leadership roles or ministry or gifts but DOES claim impartiality when it comes to salvation (Romans 2:10-11)

Key point – vs 12 has to do with LEADERSHIP and minstry roles NOT Salvation and LOVE for God is “impartial” Rom 2:11 when it comes to Salvation.

To argue that the ONLY ones loved are those for whom Christ is a direct descendant is to argue that Joseph was not loved! It is to argue that Levi was not loved! It is to argue that Samuel was not loved! It is to argue that Joshua was not loved! It is to argue that Moses was not Loved!

For just as in the case of having children – we find Rebekah laughing at God. So also in the case of the older SERVING the younger – we find that Jacob’s lot in life was much worse than Esau’s by HIS OWN account

(It may be that I only posted that 10 times and not 20)

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ScottJ
You also still haven't answered a key question. You say that "hate" doesn't mean "hate" in Romans 9.

Wrong. I say that "hate" in Romans 9 is as in the NT use of "HATE" in Luke 14 where saints are told to "HATE their mother and father".

You know - the unnanswered point made 50 times so far and dodged every single time by Calvinists!

I point out that in God's Word we are told to "LOVE our fellow human" and to "HONOR our Parents" which forbids the kind of "hate" that God calls a sin - so it only leaves "hate by comparison" as in less-favor.</font>[/QUOTE] Outstanding. So now hate means "less-favor".

Do you really believe that God favors one over another? Is that how salvation works according to you? God favors one over another?

If so, does God favor one over another that His purpose according to election might be accomplished or because of something they do?

If it is because of something they do then how is that not salvation by merit rather than grace?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. They (Calvinists) then "PRETEND" that in Malachi 1 or in Romans 9 -- God said to Rebecca "before Esau was born" --- "ESAU have I hated!".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott said "Ditto."

Why would you just deceive like this? Not surprised that you quoted me out of context though... you have been ripping the context of Romans 9 to pieces throughout this whole thread.

This is really encouraging.

In Christ,

Bob

Shouldn't been since you persist in deception. If your arguments weren't so twisted, you probably wouldn't have to use tactics like you are.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ScottJ

Earlier you asserted that hate meant "loved less" but recanted.

What exactly does that word mean? It means something and it certainly can't mean "loved equal to Jacob."

Scripture SHOWS God to love ALL - unwilling for ANY to perish.</font>[/QUOTE] Give answers, not evasion and opinion Bob.

Are you asserting against all rules of language and logic that "hate" as used in Romans 9 actually means "loved equal to"?

The impartial fair and non-arbitrary method that God defines for blessings and curses is available in BOTH the OT and NT (see Romans 2).

This is so obvious it can not be refuted!!

It can and it was. Your interpretation and abuse of Romans 2 is almost as bad as this web of deceipt you have woven around Romans 9.

You would be much better off if you just let scripture say what it says and mold your theology around it rather than molding scripture around your opinions.

So when we see God speaking of EDOM in Mal 1 and saying that "he hated Esau" (as in the history SHOWN in that nation and the curses reaped) it is by way of comparison to Israel.

That's fine. God hates those who go to hell in comparison to those who are saved.

It still doesn't change the fact that God chose Jacob before they were born or had done any good or evil.

In fact, the way you insist on reading the text fits my argument fine. God chose Jacob and was responsible for his redemption. God did not choose Esau but hated him (in comparison) because of his sin. God loved the one out of grace (for he and his nation were wicked as well) but hated the other because of his unrepentant guilt.

Calvinists love to twist that around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

I have not said this. By making this statement in response to me, you infer that I have. You have already been corrected twice. If you do it again, the only conclusion that can be made is that you are lying.

 

[timothy27]

You are so misinformed about Roman's it is scary. Chapter's 9,10,11 deal with a problem that was quite perplexing in Pauls day, namely the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles. How could the rejection of the great majority of the Jewish people be explained? Had not God made definite promises to Abraham, the father of the Jews, to bless his seed, his descendants? Had not God blessed Israel above all other nations? Of all the peoples of the world, had He not entrusted His written Word the Old Testament to the Jews alone? In view of such a past what explanation could be given for Israels rejection and the inclusion of Gentiles. It is this problem which Paul solves in the follwing three chapters.

1) In 9:1-29, he shows that Jewish rejection was not a failure of God's promise to Abraham to save his seed, for the promise was meant only for Abraham's spiritual descendants whom God had 'Chosen" unto salvation. These elect Jews along with elct Gentiles, were being called by God and saved just as had promised they would and the prophets had foretold it would come to pass.

 

[timothy27]

Bob you are so confused, you just ignore everything the text says to focus on your leaadership position. IT IS NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. it is about salvation and who it shall come through. the rest of the chapter speaks nothing of serving. It speaks about God choosing whom He will.

 

[timothy27]

Paul loved his kinsmen after the flesh, so much that he could wish himself cut off from Christ for their sake, if this could mean salvation for them. (9:1-3)

He reviews briefly their glorious priveleges of the past. Israel was God's adopte nation. He had manifested His presence in them. He had made special covenants with them and had given them the law of Moss and temple worship. His promises had been directed to them and finally, of their nation according to the flesh, had come to Christ, who God over all. (9:4,5)


In introducing the subject of God's rejection of the nation Israel, and of God's calling the GEntiles to salvation, Paul establishes the absolute right of God to do with His fallen, sinful creatures as He pleases. The apostle explains that God's promise to save Abraham's descendants hadreference only to his "spiritual" or "elect" seed(9:9-13). Salvation results from God's showing mercy, not from man's will or actions (9:14-18). God, like a potter,makes out of the clay(the fallen mass of humanity) vessels for beauty or vessels for menial use (9:19-21). Paul concludes the section by showing that no one has the right to question God's sovereignty in rejecting some men and saving others. In order to display His wrath (displeasure against sin) God will unish the vessels of wrath made for destruction(9:22); in this way He will make known the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy, His elect (9:23) whom He has called NOT ONLY from the Jews BUT ALSO from the Gentiles(9:24). Who can object to God's acting in this fashion with His sinful creatures?

I know one!! Bob!!

 

[timothy27]

Both Ismael and Isaac were the sons of Abraham, but one was rejected while the other was blessed by God. Isaac's twin son's were equally the descendants of Abraham, but God cut off Esau and blessed Jacob, not because of anything good or bad done by either of them, but in order to demonstrate His purpose of election for the promise of salvation. God's choice does not depend on man's will or actions, but rests solely on Himself.

Bob keeps arguing that it would be mean of God to tell Rebecca He hated her infant, yet told Abraham to kill Isaac, the very child thru whom the promise was supposed to come, how Bob is that okay but not the other? God does what he wants for His purposes, and as His children we are to trust that His reasons are good. If that means h hates one child but not the other, than so be it, His purposes and desires are greater than ours, and if we trust in Him he will reveal to us how something horrible in our eyes is magnifivent in His i.e. hating Esau so that Christ will come thru Jacob.