Esau I HATED!!!!!

[BobRyan]

I notice that you are so stuck on generalizing that you have to ignore (time after time) the point that is made about "The older SERVING the younger" and try to spin it in to "the older going to hell because I hate him saith the Lord".

Do you see yourself "doing it again" here?

Originally posted by timothy27:
IT IS NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. it is about salvation

Is there NO point at which you actually look at the text?

Tim 27 the rest of the chapter speaks nothing of serving.

I agree with you there. Paul takes the ONE example of SERVING "the Older SERVING the younger" to make a point about God's choosing.

But that does not give us the freedom to EISEGETE "HELL" into the meaning for "SERVING".

As difficult as this point is for Calvinists -- simply ignoring it - is not a way to "answer it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
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?

#1. It is the "rejection of Israel" that is being explained. The NATION CHURCH model gives way to the PERSECUTED church model. The GENTILES dominate the persecuted church whereas Jews dominated the NATION church.

#2. BOTH systems rely on the solid and unchanging fact that "God is not partial" when it comes to salvation -- Rom 2:11 - as Paul INSISTS.

#3. The IMPARTIALITY of God is insisted upon in Romans 2, 6, 8, 11 etc. The FAILURE of Israel is highlighted in several places but in Romans 11 we find that the SAME prinicple applied to BOTH the saved and the lost!!

Rom 11
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Tim 27 said
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.

Facinating how that section of Rom 11 above shows HOW God solves this problem by applying the SAME principle to BOTH the saved and the lost!!


Now let me see... that would be "impartial God" in Rom 2:11 and STILL impartial in Romans 11!!

How amazing is that?!!! God did not turn into a Calvinist between chapter 2 and 11 of Romans !!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
Isaac's twin son's were equally the descendants of Abraham, but God cut off Esau and blessed Jacob

Actually - God gave ALL the inheritance of BOTH Abrham AND Isaac -- to Esau.

The only thing that Esau lacked was the birthright lineage to the Messiah.

As has already been pointed out repeatedly -- this was ALSO the same thing that Joseph, Ephraim, Reuben, Dan, Asher, Benjamin etc did not get!

Not because of anything good or bad done by either of them

Tim27
Bob keeps arguing that it would be mean of God to tell Rebecca He hated her infant

What an intersting myth.

Lacking an actual quote from me - you simply make up the argument AS IF this was the point I have been arguing.

When In FACT I have been arguing that NO TEXT SAYS THAT -- instead of arguing "it is mean for the texts to say that".

This inconvenient "Detail" does not seem to stop you from pursuing that line of response.

My question is - why ignore the points I DO raise and then respond to points I AM NOT raising instead?

What is the point in that?

Is it easier to address the arguments I DON't make than the ones I DO make?

(I guess it is come to think of it)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

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.

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

Only in the sense that they are in rebellion and are sent to hell NOT in the sense that God refused to die for them or does not WEEP at their loss or that God excluded them in any way from salvation.

This is PROVEN (as has been REPEATEDLY shown without ANY response from the Calvinist group) in the case of Ephraim. (ISRAEL) Being hated AND LOVED and all God's compassions stirred up over the one HATED!!

Obviously this is NOT the "hate" Calvinists had so hoped for!!

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

The OLDER TO SERVE the younger? Yes - clearly God CHOSE that before they were born.

But SERVE does not mean "Go to hell".

See?

ScottJ said
God chose Jacob and was responsible for his redemption.

Fine except the text DOES NOT SAY "God chose Jacob for redemption NOT Esau".

Did you need to "make that up"??

ScottJ
God did not choose Esau but hated him (in comparison) because of his sin.

The text does not SAY that about Esau the person or the infant. NOR does the text say this was ever a point made AS was the point about Esau SERVING Jacob.

Do you "need" to make this up as well??

ScottJ said
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.

To "hate BECAUSE of unrepentant guilt" is to argue that one is "unrepentant" and the other "IS repentant".

Are you saying one of the infants was repentant?

Bob said --
Calvinists love to twist that (statement about Loving Jacob and hating Esau) around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

ScottJ

I have not said this.

<obligatory rant deleted>

So you reject the notion that God "hated Esau" as an infant?

That is mixed up confused kind of interpretation expressed by more than one Calvinist here.

Are you ready to stand and be counted on this one?

If so, I applaud your courage.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[timothy27]

Bob you take one verse and from a chapter and try to make the entire chapter on serving. Also you evade the fact that Esau and his descendants did not inherit the promise, they were cut off, it doesn't matter if he recieved his birth right in power if he is not going to be with God in heaven.

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

timothy27 and webdog have provided great responses. You also do violence to biblical hermeneutics when you yanked Isaac/Esau out of context of national election and try to force it upon individual election.

Only by this violence does your system stand.
Lloyd

 

[timothy27]

I see so it names Jacob and Esau to Rebecca letting her know that God hates her baby "So that God's election may stand"!!

Wrong AGAIN!!

This is your qoute so you imply, that it is mean and wrong for God to tell some one this.

 

[timothy27]

Tim27
Bob keeps arguing that it would be mean of God to tell Rebecca He hated her infant

What an intersting myth.

Lacking an actual quote from me - you simply make up the argument AS IF this was the point I have been arguing.

When In FACT I have been arguing that NO TEXT SAYS THAT -- instead of arguing "it is mean for the texts to say that".

Yet the text does say that. Romans 9:13-19

 

[Scott J]

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

To "hate BECAUSE of unrepentant guilt" is to argue that one is "unrepentant" and the other "IS repentant".

Are you saying one of the infants was repentant?</font>[/QUOTE]Nope. It is to argue that one is rightfully found guilty for his sin while the other is graciously declared innocent in spite of his guilt and because of nothing that he did. It was the purpose of God from before his birth.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said --
Calvinists love to twist that (statement about Loving Jacob and hating Esau) around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

ScottJ

I have not said this.

&lt;obligatory rant deleted&gt;

So you reject the notion that God "hated Esau" as an infant?</font>[/QUOTE] No. I reject your practice of putting words in other people's mouths and persistent use of dishonest tactics rather than a genuine comparison of ideas.

That is mixed up confused kind of interpretation expressed by more than one Calvinist here.

Are you ready to stand and be counted on this one?

If so, I applaud your courage.

Thanks. You can count me as one more that sees the fallacies in your position and dishonesty in your debate methods.

Tim 27 makes the third person who has corrected you for attempting to assign statements and arguments and opinions to them without any reason except convenience to yourself.

You should see the dishonesty in this and stop but you haven't.

You do harm to your own position when you cannot debate without being dishonest about the opposition.

 

[timothy27]

I find it amazing that Bob claims we do not read the text yet he is blind to what the text says.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
It still doesn't change the fact that God chose Jacob before they were born or had done any good or evil.

The OLDER TO SERVE the younger? Yes - clearly God CHOSE that before they were born.

But SERVE does not mean "Go to hell".

See?</font>[/QUOTE] "Purpose according to election" doesn't mean "I hope he obeys and chooses the way I need him to"... See?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ScottJ said
God chose Jacob and was responsible for his redemption.

Fine except the text DOES NOT SAY "God chose Jacob for redemption NOT Esau".

Did you need to "make that up"??</font>[/QUOTE] No. I just needed to let the text say what it says. God chose Jacob but hated Esau.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ScottJ
God did not choose Esau but hated him (in comparison) because of his sin.

The text does not SAY that about Esau the person or the infant. NOR does the text say this was ever a point made AS was the point about Esau SERVING Jacob.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it does and only someone determined to deny what Romans 9 says in context would assert that it doesn't.

Do you "need" to make this up as well??

It is you that persistently makes things up... as well as denying things that are actually right there plainly in the text.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy27:
I find it amazing that Bob claims we do not read the text yet he is blind to what the text says.

Bob realizes that he can't allow the texts to say what they say and maintain his view. So when the text disagrees with his view then it must not mean what it means because... his opinion could not possibly be wrong.

His treatment of the text is not unlike the treatment of our responses. Our responses can't mean what they mean... they have to mean something that Bob thinks he can respond to and defeat.

 

[timothy27]

Bob said --
Calvinists love to twist that (statement about Loving Jacob and hating Esau) around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.


The above statement was made by Bob, I find that numerous qoutes gets confusing as to whom is saying what. Bob assumes the statement is monstrous because he sees it from a fallen human view. God tells us "My ways are not your ways, my mind is not your mind." Unless this does not mean what it says either.

 

[johnp.]

Bob said --
Calvinists love to twist that (statement about Loving Jacob and hating Esau) around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

And he was amazed at their lack of faith. Mark 6:6.

...she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:12.

john.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
Calvinists love to twist that (statement about Loving Jacob and hating Esau) around into some monsterous statement supposedly (mythically) said to Rebecca about her infant son.

Originally posted by timothy27:

The above statement was made by Bob, I find that numerous qoutes gets confusing as to whom is saying what. Bob assumes the statement is monstrous because he sees it from a fallen human view. God tells us "My ways are not your ways, my mind is not your mind." Unless this does not mean what it says either.

You can read all of Genesis and all of Romans 9 and you will NOT see God telling Rebeka that "He hates one of the infants" much less Esau named as hated in some "mythical" conversation to the infant's mother.

It is not in either text - but it appears that many Calvinists are willing to both "invent" the idea and then defend it JUST LIKE it was in scripture.

Facinating.

Malahi 1 is not in Genesis -- and IS about the NATIONS of Israel and Edom.

Just more inconvenient facts to be "ignored".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Bob had a good post. Malachi 1! Why not also miss the context of Rom 9-11 - national Israel! Duh!

All this side show posts shows you guys have really missed it. Context rules!

God was electing a nation. Whether or not He liked one or the other personally is not the issue.

The only justification for such violation of context is the quest to fabricate proof for an errant determinism.

Lloyd

 

[johnp.]

...she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:12.

God.

 

[philg]

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

1:2
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,

1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

1:4
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.

Clearly nations are in view

 

[johnp.]

like father like son

john.

 

[BobRyan]

SHe was NOT told "Esau have I hated" RATHER "she was TOLD the Older shall serve the younger"

What a joy some take in "imagining" "SHE was TOLD Esau have I hated"

You just never know when someone will take joy in messing up a text of scripture and then pretending like "that IS scripture".

Romans 9 is good about referencing events in Genesis AND in Malach 1. But never gives us the right to "imagine" that Malachi was recording events in Isaac's day "no matter what the text of Malachi says and no matter what exegetical principle would say".

(Sadly for many of our Calvinists on this thread.)

In Christ,

Bob