Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

[Skandelon]

:type:

I know its not my world or my time table, but I just wanted to remind you that we are still waiting to hear your explanation of Romans 11 as it relates to the original discussion on this thread.

:type:

 

[Jarthur001]

Calvinists have interpreted this reference in Romans 9 to support their views of individual and unconditional election.

I wonder why????

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.

ok...you are on to something...keep going.

Non-Calvinists often refer to the passage where Christ calls us to hate our mother and father in order to be his disciple.

Yes they do, and it shows they miss the point of Romans 9

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:

Because this is what Scripture says???

The idea is not hate but love. This is clear in both Romans 9 and the passage it is quoted from in the OT. There is a key word I want you to find in the OT just after it is said that God hates Esau. The English word starts with the letter "F".

 

[Jarthur001]

No. The passage in the OP is not about individual election. It is about Nations. God chose Jacob (Israel) to be the heir and not Esau.

Jacob was a man...a real man that became a nation. Esau was also a real man. Esau's nation was madeup of real people. It was not just a land. Land does not sin. People sin. No people...no sin.

 

[Amy.G]

Jacob was a man...a real man that became a nation. Esau was also a real man. Esau's nation was madeup of real people. It was not just a land. Land does not sin. People sin. No people...no sin.

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

 

[Jarthur001]

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

and....what happen? Who was born?

 

[Jarthur001]

and....what happen? Who was born?

24When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.e 26After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.f Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.


now back to Romans 9 and what does it say??

 

[Amy.G]

and....what happen? Who was born?

Of course 2 children were born, but each child represents a nation. It's not hard to understand.

 

[Jarthur001]

Of course 2 children were born, but each child represents a nation. It's not hard to understand.

Amy,

I have been over this so many times, its pointless and a waste of my time and yours.

Peace..James

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,

I have been over this so many times, its pointless and a waste of my time and yours.

Peace..James

I agree. :wavey:


See, we found something in common! :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Jarthur,

I don't know if you read through this entire thread, but I'd be interested to know how you interpret Romans 11. What do you believe the olive tree represents in Paul's analogy? And what do you suppose he means when he speaks of the Jews being cut off from the tree while the Gentiles are being grafted in? And what do you think he means when he talks about the Jews being grafted back into the tree if they leave their unbelief?

Thanks

 

[Jarthur001]

Jarthur,

I don't know if you read through this entire thread, but I'd be interested to know how you interpret Romans 11. What do you believe the olive tree represents in Paul's analogy? And what do you suppose he means when he speaks of the Jews being cut off from the tree while the Gentiles are being grafted in? And what do you think he means when he talks about the Jews being grafted back into the tree if they leave their unbelief?

Thanks

Skandelon,

I have a few days of writing ahead of me. It maybe a few days before I get back. I will address this and anything else. If there are other things in chapter 11 you want to know my views, please send me a note. Other wise, I'll just address the tree.

James

 

[Skandelon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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

And now...

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Jarthur,

I don't know if you read through this entire thread, but I'd be interested to know how you interpret Romans 11. What do you believe the olive tree represents in Paul's analogy? And what do you suppose he means when he speaks of the Jews being cut off from the tree while the Gentiles are being grafted in? And what do you think he means when he talks about the Jews being grafted back into the tree if they leave their unbelief?

Thanks

Skandelon,

I have a few days of writing ahead of me. It maybe a few days before I get back. I will address this and anything else. If there are other things in chapter 11 you want to know my views, please send me a note. Other wise, I'll just address the tree.

James

Not trying to offend anyone, just pointing out a pattern. My hope is that Jarthur won't follow Archangel's precedent.

 

[The Archangel]

And now...




Not trying to offend anyone, just pointing out a pattern. My hope is that Jarthur won't follow Archangel's precedent.

You seem to think that we have oodles of time to post long, perhaps two postings long, posts about something you are not willing to "discuss." I will do my best to get around to it (likely writing on my own and then pasting it into the BB).

Just because I don't answer your incessant prodding doesn't mean I don't want to. I am currently teaching through Romans, preparing messages on Jonah, planning messages on Ruth (maybe) and Ephesians and Genesis, while adapting curriculum on personal evangelism to be offered at our church. And all this is on top of the personal reading I do...and I have a wife, daughter and another daughter on the way.

So, friend, your desires to hear my thoughts on Romans 11--which you will undoubtedly belittle and bash anyway--are not real high on my to-do list.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

You seem to think that we have oodles of time to post long, perhaps two postings long, posts about something you are not willing to "discuss." I will do my best to get around to it (likely writing on my own and then pasting it into the BB).

Just because I don't answer your incessant prodding doesn't mean I don't want to. I am currently teaching through Romans, preparing messages on Jonah, planning messages on Ruth (maybe) and Ephesians and Genesis, while adapting curriculum on personal evangelism to be offered at our church. And all this is on top of the personal reading I do...and I have a wife, daughter and another daughter on the way.

So, friend, your desires to hear my thoughts on Romans 11--which you will undoubtedly belittle and bash anyway--are not real high on my to-do list.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Just wanted to say congrats on your soon to be new arrival in the "angel" family

 

[The Archangel]

Just wanted to say congrats on your soon to be new arrival in the "angel" family

Thanks Webdog. She'll be here, Lord willing, on or about June 17. I know it shows faith-less-ness, but I worry and worry until I'm holding the little screaming baby in the delivery room. Then, the worry lasts for evermore.

Thanks again,

The Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

Just wanted to say congrats on your soon to be new arrival in the "angel" family

same here, archangel.
same here.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Thanks Webdog. She'll be here, Lord willing, on or about June 17. I know it shows faith-less-ness, but I worry and worry until I'm holding the little screaming baby in the delivery room. Then, the worry lasts for evermore.

Thanks again,

The Archangel

I've been there...just part of the paternal process. My daughter is 2 and I'm already stressing over her dating. My wife and I are divided on if it should be 30 or 35

 

[Skandelon]

You seem to think that we have oodles of time to post long, perhaps two postings long, posts about something you are not willing to "discuss." I will do my best to get around to it (likely writing on my own and then pasting it into the BB).

No, not "oodles of time," just a small fraction of the amount of time you have taken to tally up over 150 posts since making that promise last month.

Just because I don't answer your incessant prodding doesn't mean I don't want to. I am currently teaching through Romans, preparing messages on Jonah, planning messages on Ruth (maybe) and Ephesians and Genesis, while adapting curriculum on personal evangelism to be offered at our church. And all this is on top of the personal reading I do...and I have a wife, daughter and another daughter on the way.

I do understand. With two jobs and four kids myself, I realize time constraints. I only prod because I care, don't take it personally. I'm just messing with you. You are one of the few here who has, at times, engaged in honest and objective dialogue. I wanted to continue that with regard to our discussion on Romans 9-11, but this question brought it to a crashing halt. Sorry if I appear to be impatient. I'm really not upset or anything. Just persistent.

So, friend, your desires to hear my thoughts on Romans 11--which you will undoubtedly belittle and bash anyway--are not real high on my to-do list.

You cut me deep Shrek! You cut me real deep just now!

I have only belittled and bashed the arguments where you seemed to contradict yourself (i.e. the whole "it is certain that He is not intending to say they would have repented." versus your later statement; "I think some might have [repented] had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't.") But we don't need to rehash that.

Congrats on the new little girl! Seriously, I am thrilled for you and your family. Enjoy them, they grow up way too fast!!! She will probably be like 6 years old before you have time to reply to the Romans 11 thing.

 

[The Archangel]

No, not "oodles of time," just a small fraction of the amount of time you have taken to tally up over 150 posts since making that promise last month.

None of which have had to be as detailed as a Romans 11 post would have to be.

I have only belittled and bashed the arguments where you seemed to contradict yourself (i.e. the whole "it is certain that He is not intending to say they would have repented." versus your later statement; "I think some might have [repented] had Jesus been incarnated in their time, but He wasn't.") But we don't need to rehash that.

The second statement was a clarification. I was pointing out, as you continue to ignore, the purpose of Jesus' words was not to point out ability to believe, certainty of belief, etc. Is not the author (me) allowed to clarify what He said? Since, apparently, you don't think so, it is ever more important to carefully construct a post on Romans 11--especially since you seem not to give the grace of clarification to your opponents. Tell me, where's my motivation to be quick in my response?

Congrats on the new little girl! Seriously, I am thrilled for you and your family. Enjoy them, they grow up way too fast!!!

Thank you. One little girl is almost 2.5. I have no idea where the time went.

She will probably be like 6 years old before you have time to reply to the Romans 11 thing.

Unappreciated...like the old cartoon with the little yippee dog hovering around the big bull dog saying "c'mon Spike, don't you want...., huh, huh, huh?"

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

None of which have had to be as detailed as a Romans 11 post would have to be.

I never requested anything real detailed. Just a simple paragraph like the one I provided explaining the analogy of the tree and branches with regard to Israel and the Gentiles.

The second statement was a clarification. I was pointing out, as you continue to ignore, the purpose of Jesus' words was not to point out ability to believe, certainty of belief, etc. Is not the author (me) allowed to clarify what He said?

As I said, I REALLY don't want to rehash that one, you don't have the time and I don't have the will.

Tell me, where's my motivation to be quick in my response?

My pestering and annoying comments. :wavey: (JK, take your time, but you can expect me to keep bumping this up...)

Thank you. One little girl is almost 2.5. I have no idea where the time went.

I know, my oldest is 10 and I can't believe it!!! Slow down!!!!

Unappreciated...like the old cartoon with the little yippee dog hovering around the big bull dog saying "c'mon Spike, don't you want...., huh, huh, huh?"

Blessings,

The Archangel

:laugh: Good visual image. yip yip yip

But I prefer the image of Glenn Beck's red phone sitting on his desk silently waiting a call from the White House explaining where he is wrong. :smilewinkgrin: