Is this the Arminian Stumper?

[ScottEmerson]

Two things any Bible person can do.

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

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

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If we assume (as you say you do) that man's will is TOTALLY free, then it must, logically, be totally free of biases to choose or reject Christ. Free will is not choosing - the person possessing such free will chooses.

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

Let me know how you do.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TimothyW:
I think the real question is how He could have possibly loved Jacob?

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by shilo:

Speaking of brothers. I heard about two twins who were also raised by the same parents. God loved one of them and hated the other. Their names were Jacob and Esau. Now that aint HOG WASH its scripture [/QUOTE

And WHY did God Hate Esau?
What you are insinuating isn't scripture at all but scripture misused..what you are insinuating is straight hogwash.

Huh?

Malachi 1:2-3 "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated

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

That looks like scripture to me.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by shilo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> HOW DOES ROMANS 9 NOT HAVE TO DO WITH ELECTION (BY ANYONES DEFINATION)?????

When you speak of Election you mean as in Salvation. Salvation isn't an issue here at all. Also. Individuals are NOT being spoken about Ie. Esau and Jacob as individuals

The Election concerns the Messianic line of Abraham-Issac-Jacob-Jesus Christ. It is an Election to National preferance or theocratic priviledges and there is nothing having to do with salvation in it.

Gen 25:22-23 confirms this.

So although the children were born (rom 9:11) Nothing took place before the foundation of the world- they were in the womb of rebekah when it was said "the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen25:23) (rom 9:12) Individuals are not under discussion- Nations were: two nations, two manner of People. (gen 25:23)</font>[/QUOTE]Paul, for the first 8 chapters speaks extensively on the problem of sin, the doctrine of Justification, and the Salvation of his people ending chapter 8 with some of the most powerful verses concerning ones security in Christ...then without warning stops talking about salvation/justification for just one chapter only to pick it up again in chapter 10??? Interesting hermenutics you have?

But, for arguement's sake, what are nations made up of? INDIVIDUALS

Are you implying by your interpretation that God hates people based upon their nationality? Afterall, you say he is speaking about nations, not individuals, and the verse says, "Esau I hated."

If Romans 9 is not concerned with Salvation why does it speak of "adoption as sons" (vs 4)
"mercy" (vs. 15-16,18)
"God's wrath" (vs. 22)
"objects of mercy" (vs. 23)
And looky at verse 27! "only the remnant will be saved."

I'm not sure but I think being saved has something to do with salvation.

And look at verses 30-33: what do you think Paul is talking about when he refers to a "righteousness that is by faith" if it is not salvation.

The entire first 11 chapters of this book is a exposition of Justification. It's all about SALVATION!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
(Hint: Look up the first verses of Malachi. You'll see that the name "Esau" isn't referring to a specific person, but a nation - the nation Edom.)

Okay, let's let the text speak:

1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD .
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

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

4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD . 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

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

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by shilo:
The Election concerns the Messianic line of Abraham-Issac-Jacob-Jesus Christ. It is an Election to National preferance or theocratic priviledges and there is nothing having to do with salvation in it.

Gen 25:22-23 confirms this.

So although the children were born (rom 9:11) Nothing took place before the foundation of the world- they were in the womb of rebekah when it was said "the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen25:23) (rom 9:12) Individuals are not under discussion- Nations were: two nations, two manner of People. (gen 25:23)

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

Romans 9 -- In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

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

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

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

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

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

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26 and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Samuel:
I'm not sure but I think being saved has something to do with salvation.

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

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Samuel:
I'm not sure but I think being saved has something to do with salvation.

Nah. That's just the preconceived notion you brought to the text.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, npetreley, you're right. I think my preconceptions have done me in. Saved and salvation are two totally different words really. One has just one syallable while the other has three. I retract my former arguements, I'm now an Arminian! Good Night!

 

[shilo]

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

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

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

 

[Ray Berrian]

Shilo,

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

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

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

 

[Bible-belted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Yelsew]

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

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

 

[Bible-belted]

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

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

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

Your second paragraph also says nothing against Calvanism.

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

Seems that you are arguing in favour of calvanism now!

 

[Skandelon]

Has anyone else noticed that the Arminians on this post don't address the arguements presented to them.

They never really answered the orginal question that this post presented. "Why do you choose Christ while others reject Him?"

They restated the question in different ways, and danced around it, but never really answered it.

All of the very specific scriptural arguements brought by the Calvinistic believers were glossed over or ignored all together. There are dozens of "stumpers" for the Arminian theologian and the way they deal with them is either by ignoring the arguement or changing the subject all together.

I debated in High School and College and we would have been killed if we were to just let an arguement "flow" without a significant rebuttal.

I've been reading through all of these posts and it seems that every "reasonable" arguement an Arminian makes is rebutted.

 

[Bible-belted]

Samuel,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eric B]

Paul, for the first 8 chapters speaks extensively on the problem of sin, the doctrine of Justification, and the Salvation of his people ending chapter 8 with some of the most powerful verses concerning ones security in Christ...then without warning stops talking about salvation/justification for just one chapter only to pick it up again in chapter 10??? Interesting hermenutics you have?

If Romans 9 is not concerned with Salvation why does it speak of "adoption as sons" (vs 4)
"mercy" (vs. 15-16,18)
"God's wrath" (vs. 22)
"objects of mercy" (vs. 23)
And looky at verse 27! "only the remnant will be saved."

And look at verses 30-33: what do you think Paul is talking about when he refers to a "righteousness that is by faith" if it is not salvation.

The entire first 11 chapters of this book is a exposition of Justification. It's all about SALVATION!

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

But, for arguement's sake, what are nations made up of? INDIVIDUALS

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

Are you implying by your interpretation that God hates people based upon their nationality? Afterall, you say he is speaking about nations, not individuals, and the verse says, "Esau I hated."

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

3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far the LORD is talking about Jacob and Esau, the brothers. And because the LORD hated Esau, He turned his mountains into a wasteland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bible-belted]

Eric,

No one is arguing for double predestination.

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

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

 

[Ray Berrian]

Samuel,

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

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

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

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

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

My regards,
Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Bible-belted]

It isn't that hard Ray.

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

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