Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

[Winman]

You did a great job of explaining this passage in Romans Skandelon. :thumbsup:

What is important to note, and you brought that out, is that God does not harden a person without a just reason. It is a person who is already rebellious toward God that God hardens. As I have said before, God is actually giving these persons what they desire. They desire to believe a lie, and so God allows them to be deceived.

2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Here God explains that he does not blind a person without just cause. These persons love their sin and hate the truth, so God allows them to be deceived with a strong delusion. So God is not going around blinding people for his pleasure.

God in his foreknowledge knew Pharaoh would be exceedingly rebellious, and so raised him up to his position that he could demonstrate his power to the world.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

God said this to Moses before he had gone to Pharaoh. God already knew Pharaoh would not listen.

And you also brought out that God had been very patient and longsuffering toward these rebellious Jews and even Pharaoh. Pharaoh could have repented.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

I mean, think about it, if any person had seen all theses miraculous plagues that Pharaoh saw with his own eyes, would they not repent? But Pharaoh was exceedingly obstinate and would not. And while it does say God hardened his heart, it also says Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Exo 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

When the scriptures say God hardens a man's heart, it is not saying that God hardened someone who had been open toward the truth. No, it is a person who is already hard and self-willed. These persons by their own rebellion and obstinance become more hard when they are confronted. They simply will not come to the truth because they hate the truth and love their own way.

But you did an excellent job of explaining this passage that is often misinterpreted.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, I tend to believe that Esau was saved. Yes, it does say he was profane in selling his birthright in the NT...

So, there is no way to say for certain, but Esau seems like a very good and loving man here, I am tempted to believe he was saved.

Esau was as saved as Judas. In other words certainly not! As a matter of fact God hated him! That's not exactly the mark of a saved man.

 

[Winman]

Esau was as saved as Judas. In other words certainly not! As a matter of fact God hated him! That's not exactly the mark of a saved man.

When Paul said this he was quoting Malachi 1.

Mal 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
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,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

The Lord said this nearly two thousand years after Jacob and Esau lived. So, as others have said here, this may mean Esau's descendents and not Esau himself.

You need to understand that Paul was speaking to Jews who knew the scriptures very well. They knew this verse was from Malachi.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong, we do not know if Esau was saved or not. But in Genesis you can see God working on Esau. God told Jacob to return and promised he would be with him.

Gen 31:3 And the LORD said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.

Jacob did return as the Lord commanded, but he was still very afraid of his brother Esau. He sent his wive's handmaidens and their children first to meet Esau and kept his own wives and children behind in case Esau attacked them. Esau had come with four hundred men.

Gen 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.
2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

But we see that Esau was no longer angry at Jacob and ran to meet him with love and forgiveness.

Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

So, Esau was a changed man. He had vowed to kill Jacob, but now was forgiving and loving. And Esau was a very blessed man, he had much wealth.

This doesn't prove Esau was saved, but it sure seems like the acts of a saved man to me.

 

[Jerome]

Luther agrees:thumbs:

Luther's Works:

It is also likely that in the end Esau was saved.

 

[Skandelon]

No. Please read. The explaining is all there. I'm tired of this fruitless discussion.

Do you mean by "fruitless" that it is not accomplishing what you desire? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean the conversation is fruitless.

Here is the passage: 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17 Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.

What am I missing?

Now, we are not arguing that Esau was saved, we are arguing that we don't know if he was or was not. In the same manner, those Jews who were being hardened in Paul's day, we don't know if some of them were saved or not. Why is that important? Because if you interpret Paul's words in Romans 9 to mean that those God chose to hardened were the unelect reprobate then they would NEVER have the opportunity to be saved. Yet, Paul seems to believe they might be saved. Read Romans 11:14 and following and you will see that.

 

[The Archangel]

Good to see that you at least acknowledge the corporate element, likewise I too acknowledge the individual aspect. Paul, for example, was an individual who was chosen for "noble purposes" while his fellow countrymen were being judicially blinded.

Arminians (at least those of us who actually deal with these passages) acknowledge that God did individually pick out the "remnant of Israel" to be his messengers to the rest of the world.

What part of this passages teaches individual and unconditional election as promoted by Calvinism?

That part comes out later

Romans 9:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 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 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

God is free to have mercy on whom He wills. God is free to make vessels for honorable use and dishonorable use.

So, you would agree that it is unfair for Calvinists to use this as a support passage for their view of unconditional election of individuals? After all, that is the conclusions they are inferring by using this passage as a proof text, is it not?

No. It is not a proof text. Paul is writing in the style of a diatribe and he is anticipating questions, asking them himself, and then answering them. The "mercy on whom I will have mercy" and the "potter-clay" texts happen in that context so they are examples to bolster Paul's argument that God does choose individuals (even with nationalistic implications) and reject others.

We agree. But I take that to mean God has the right to choose to graft Gentiles into the vine. He has the right to show mercy to the Gentiles, who have been in darkness for years, while hardening the Jews, who have been shown the light but have continued in rebellion.

But, this is too general. Not all the Jews are rejected and not all the Gentiles are grafted in. What is more it would seem ones of both parties are included and ones of both parties are rejected. He has the right to do what ever He wishes with whomever He wishes.

So are you saying Esau might have been saved and could be in heaven?

Considering that you just said, "Romans passage is not to say that Esau himself was reprobate." I assume that you would answer this question, "yes, it is possible."

If its possible that Esau, the un-chosen brother was saved, isn't it possible that the un-chosen Israelites Paul refers to as being "hardened" might also be saved?

First, let me say I'm going to wait to discuss Romans 11. I'd like to study it further and get my thoughts concise.

I don't know Esau's eternal fate, and neither does anyone else. Esau was rejected by God in that the promise did not flow through him, but his brother Jacob. So, I think, to say that Esau was reprobate would be to take Paul out of the scope of his intended meaning in that passage.

Also, as to the last paragraph above, I don't think any who is un-chosen is ever saved.

Why do Calvinists interpret passages in Romans 9 which say "God shows mercy to whom he shows mercy and hardened whom he wants to harden" as meaning "God will effectually saved some individuals and certainly condemn other individuals" when even you see that is "taking Paul too far?" Especially considering that those being hardened might be saved, right?

That passage (I will have mercy), explained above, is not the same as Jacob I loved Esau I hated. One is an answer to an anticipated question (the latter) and one is discussing God's purpose of election in the promise given to Abraham--emphasizing spiritual decent from Abraham, not physical descent.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Archangel,

Before we go any further I think we need to clarify something. What do you think Paul means when he speaks of them being "grafted into the vine?" In other words, what does the "vine" represent in your view? That will help me understand what you are arguing here.

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel,

Before we go any further I think we need to clarify something. What do you think Paul means when he speaks of them being "grafted into the vine?" In other words, what does the "vine" represent in your view? That will help me understand what you are arguing here.

I'll work on that ASAP. In fact, I'm working now--but it may be some time later that I answer.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

Archangel,

Before we go any further I think we need to clarify something. What do you think Paul means when he speaks of them being "grafted into the vine?" In other words, what does the "vine" represent in your view? That will help me understand what you are arguing here.

If you're going in the direction I think you are going, I'm pleased. I'll chime in when the time comes, as much as possible. (I tend to post with my phone, so my comments have to be short, most of the time.)

On this section I tend to make as many enemies as allies, however. It's my opinion that Romans doesn't support non-Calvinist theology any more than Calvinist theology. My perspective is that Paul is defending God's right to reject Israel kata sarka ("according to the flesh") in favor of his Israel, the body of believers in Christ.

Jewish literature always characterized Israel as a vessel, as in Jeremiah were God gave Israel the choice as to whether it would be a vessel for God or a vessel unto destruction. In the intertestimental period, Jewish literature (e.g., Ben Sirach) began to describe the nation of Israel as a vessel, and individuals as well. In other words, people shared the identity of the nation.

The affect of the intertestamental view is seen in Paul's literature. Not only in chapter 9, but in Galatians 3 (not to mention Ephesians) where Christ is the true Seed in whom people become seeds by faith.

Anyhow, I'm reading someone's monograph on Romans 9 and "hardening" right now. It's going to be published later this year. I'll probably use some of that material.

But like I said, I end up having new enemies and friends. :tongue3:

 

[Steven2006]

The OP is a bad appliaction.

There are a few translational issues here. The most important is that the Hebrew word translated "hated" actually referrs not to dislike as we understand it, but to a lesser degree of affection. Literally translated, it would be "love less", but such a construct is absent in the English. So if someone is thinking that God loved one but did not love the other, that's an inaccurate understanding of the passage.

I thought this was interesting. However I looked up the word used for hate and is was sane' . Looking up the meaning I can't find your definition anywhere. Can you supply some more information about this? Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

I'll work on that ASAP. In fact, I'm working now--but it may be some time later that I answer.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Ok, I'll wait. I think this will help with all our discussions thus far.

 

[Skandelon]

Archangel,

Before we go any further I think we need to clarify something. What do you think Paul means when he speaks of them being "grafted into the vine?" In other words, what does the "vine" represent in your view? That will help me understand what you are arguing here.

???

What happened?

 

[Aaron]

Calvinists have interpreted this reference in Romans 9 to support their views of individual and unconditional election. This would mean Jacob was individually chosen to be effectually saved, while Esau was passed over to remain in his state of total depravity and certain condemnation.

Non-Calvinists often refer to the passage where Christ calls us to hate our mother and father in order to be his disciple. Clearly that doesn't mean we literally "hate" them, otherwise that would be contradicting the command to "honor our father and mother." Instead, this is about choosing to honor God even over our parents. Likewise, the passage in Romans 9 is God's expression of choosing one nation (Israel) over another (Edom) to be used for "nobel purposes."

The question I have for everyone to consider is this: If indeed these passage is interpreted Calvinistically then why does scripture seem to indicate that God helped the Edomites:

• 
  Deuteronomy 2:22 NIV: The LORD had done the same for the descendants of Esau, who lived in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites from before them. They drove them out and have lived in their place to this day.

And that Esau and Jacob were close friends who honored God for their successes? (Reference Genesis 33)

If indeed, God individually "hated" Esau in that he was an un-elect reprobate and enemy of God, then why would Jacob and God respond to him in this way?

I haven't read the whole thread.

You have to understand that Jacob wasn't loved because he possessed some quality that Esau didn't. They were both reprobate, but Jacob was loved, and Esau was hated.

We're commanded to love our persecutors. Our persecutors are obvious reprobates and enemies of God, but we love them anyway. In your thinking, you probably love as a means to win them over. (That's not real love.) In our thinking, we love them just because. It helps to realize that, but for the grace of God, I would be the persecutor.

 

[Skandelon]

I haven't read the whole thread.

You have to understand that Jacob wasn't loved because he possessed some quality that Esau didn't. They were both reprobate, but Jacob was loved, and Esau was hated.

Which means, what?

That God has chosen to save one and allow the other remain in his natural fallen state and destined to certain destruction?

OR, that God chose to use Jacob for noble purpose and Esau for common use? They are both from the same "lump of clay," which is Israel. In the same way, Paul was of Israel and was also chosen for a noble purpose, while his Jewish brethren remain under the Judicial Hardening. That is Paul's point.

 

[Aaron]

Which means, what?

That God has chosen to save one and allow the other remain in his natural fallen state and destined to certain destruction?

Yep.

OR, that God chose to use Jacob for noble purpose and Esau for common use?

Same thing.

They are both from the same "lump of clay," which is Israel.

Which is Israel after the flesh. Remember, Esau was also a son of Isaac, the son of Abraham.

In the same way, Paul was of Israel and was also chosen for a noble purpose, while his Jewish brethren remain under the Judicial Hardening. That is Paul's point.

His point is meaningless unless Paul was chosen to be saved, and his brethren were not.

 

[Skandelon]

Yep.

Same thing.

Oh, you think being burned for all eternity is equal to a vessel being chosen for common use? Hmmm

Which is Israel after the flesh. Remember, Esau was also a son of Isaac, the son of Abraham.

Agree.

His point is meaningless unless Paul was chosen to be saved, and his brethren were not.

Meaningless? You think its meaningless for Paul to point out explain why he has been chosen to be reserved from the Hardening and used for a noble purpose while his Jewish brethren are being "sent a spirit of stupor?" And why the Gentiles have attained righteousness while the "chosen Israelites" (flesh) are not? How is that "meaningless?"

What you seem to miss is that the same people who Paul speaks of as being hardened in Romans 9 are the ones Paul anticipates might be saved once provoked to envy (Rm. 11:14) Thus proving Paul didn't think of them as being the non-elect reprobates.

 

[Aaron]

The fact that many Jews went to (and are going to) hell shows that "all Israel" doesn't mean Israel according to the flesh, but the Israel of God, those who are chosen, Jew and Gentile alike, and it shows what those who were chosen, were chosen for—salvation.

I've found it's futile to argue C vs A. It boils down to this. You believe you are saved because of some inherent quality in yourself, I believe I'm saved because God reached down for no reason other than His own will and, quite against my will, dragged me into the Kingdom "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."*

*C.S. Lewis

 

[Skandelon]

The fact that many Jews went to (and are going to) hell shows that "all Israel" doesn't mean Israel according to the flesh, but the Israel of God, those who are chosen, Jew and Gentile alike, and it shows what those who were chosen, were chosen for—salvation.

Huh? I'm not sure who you are replying to but this has nothing to do with what I wrote. I agree that not all Israel according to the flesh will be saved. As Rm 11 teaches anyone, even those being hardened, can leave their unbelief and be saved.

I've found it's futile to argue C vs A. It boils down to this. You believe you are saved because of some inherent quality in yourself, I believe I'm saved because God reached down for no reason other than His own will and, quite against my will, dragged me into the Kingdom "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."

I think that would be a misrepresentation of both sides of the C/A debate. I believe I'm saved because God sent his son, the Spirit and the gospel to pursue me in my sin. And I'm pretty sure Calvinists teach that men follow their own desires and once reborn the desire changes to want to follow God, so there is no one who is "dragged struggling and resentful," because they have been regenerated.

 

[Aaron]

I believe I'm saved because God sent his son, the Spirit and the gospel to pursue me in my sin.

And that you possessed by nature some kind of inherent nobility to accept God's gift.

And I'm pretty sure Calvinists teach that men follow their own desires and once reborn the desire changes to want to follow God, so there is no one who is "dragged struggling and resentful," because they have been regenerated.

You should read The Holy War by John Bunyan, then say again that no one is converted against his will.

A verse by John Donne comes to mind:

Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enslave me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

 

[Skandelon]

And that you possessed by nature some kind of inherent nobility to accept God's gift.

"let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the Lord. -Jer. 9:24

"Abraham believed and it was CREDITED TO HIM as righteousness." -Paul

Aaron, you may not realize it, but your response is actually the fallacy of "begging the question" because it assumes there must be something outside the individual that caused him to choose God, which is the very deterministic assumption that our position rejects. Every one is "without excuse" because everyone can clearly see and understand all they need to respond in repentance and faith. If they don't its their own fault because they had everything they needed. If they do repent and believe its nothing boast worthy except in the sense that the scriptures above reflect.

You should read The Holy War by John Bunyan, then say again that no one is converted against his will.

A verse by John Donne comes to mind:

Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enslave me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

I thought Calvinists believe that regeneration changed a man's nature and gave him a new desire, a desire that would love God and most assuredly choose him? Am I mistaken? Is there yet another thread of Calvinism I've yet to encounter?