bornofGod888
Well-Known Member
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,030
- 336
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually, the entire first video is devoted to reading Romans chapter 9 from a Calvinist's perspective. In fact, if you hadn't been foretold by me that this video presentation was a refutation of Calvin's heretical views, then you would conclude, based solely upon video #1, that the speaker was a Calvinist who was defending that erroneous position.
This is where both Calvin and you are in grievous error, my friend. In reality, Paul was not speaking in the context of "individual destinies" at all in relation to Jacob and Esau. Here, I'll prove it to you:
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth); It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." - Romans 9:10-13
Now, the duped follower of the heretic Calvin will have an "A-ha!" moment here and say, "See! God predestinated Jacob unto salvation while he was still in the womb and likewise predestinated Esau unto damnation while he was still in the womb. Yes, God hated Esau and loved Jacob and such love and hatred had nothing to do with either one of them having done any good or evil!"
Sound about right?
Well, it's heresy, just the same.
Aside from the fact that Paul wasn't even speaking about INDIVIDUAL ELECTION here, whenever we read something in scripture, we not only need to consider it's immediate context (which, if we backed up a bit in our reading, was clearly about NATIONAL ELECTION and not INDIVIDUAL ELECTION), but also it's overall context. In this instance, Paul actually cited two Old Testament portions of scripture to make his case. Tell me, Rick, wouldn't it behoove us to go back and actually read the same in their original context to see why Paul was citing them? I mean, hopefully, we both agree that Paul had an amazing understanding of the Old Testament scriptures, having had the same illuminated unto him by none other than Jesus Christ, so to even suggest that Paul was going to MISuse the same, totally out of context, is, in and of itself, preposterous. Anyhow, here is the first portion of scripture which Paul cited:
"And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. 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."
I mean, no offense, but you can read, can't you? Contextually, God's "the elder shall serve the younger" statement was in regard to "two nations" or "two manner of people". Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with "individual destinies" as both Calvin and you erroneously claim. Tell me, Rick, when did Esau THE INDIVIDUAL "serve" Jacob THE INDIVIDUAL? It never happened. Go ahead and reread the entire accounts of the lives of both Jacob and Esau, from the time that they were born until the time that they both died, and you will see that THE INDIVIDUAL Esau never "served" THE INDIVIDUAL Jacob. Not only this, but when Esau was coming to meet Jacob, Jacob thought that Esau was coming to kill him, even as he had previously threatened to do. As such, Jacob prepared a present for Esau and delivered it into the hands of his servants, of which Esau was NOT one, and told them to say the following to Esau when they met him:
"And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee? Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob's; it is a present unto my lord Esau: and behold, also he is behind us." - Genesis 32:17-18
Jacob indentified himself as Esau's "servant" and also identified Esau as his "lord".
Okay, it's your turn. Show me anywhere in scripture where THE INDIVIDUAL Esau was ever THE INDIVIDUAL Jacob's "servant". No such passages of scripture exist, my friend, do they? No, they do not. At the same time, however, there are many scriptures which speak of THE NATION OF ESAU or THE NATION OF EDOM being "servant" to THE NATION OF JACOB or to THE NATION OF ISRAEL, aren't there? You bet your sweet bippy, there are...just as God contextually foretold. IOW, Calvin's grievous misuse of this portion from Romans chapter 9 is heresy. Neither God, back in Genesis, nor Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, were talking about "individual destinies", contextually. No, instead, they were both, in fact, speaking about God's purposes in regards to NATIONAL ELECTION. Hopefully, you can see this and will alter your current beliefs accordingly. Furthermore, here's the verse from Malachi which Paul cited in relation to "Jacob" and "Esau" in context:
"The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 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, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 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. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel." - Malachi 1:1-5
Once more, my friend, as you apparently already recognize, contextually, "I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau" is referring to NATIONS. Yes, contextually, "Jacob" is THE NATION OF ISRAEL and "Esau" is THE NATION OF EDOM. Again, these words were uttered by God more than 1,000 years after both THE INDIVIDUALS "Jacob" and "Esau" were dead, so Calvin's attempts to suggest that God "hated Esau" before he was even born and somehow "predestinated" him, THE INDIVIDUAL, to eternal damnation are heretical. Again, I'd advise you to watch the entire video presentation for more documentation of the same.
In reality, as I've just shown, there is no "contrast" whatsoever between Malachi's words and Paul's words. In fact, the latter (Paul) quoted the former (Malachi) in context, unlike the heretic Calvin.
Have you never read:
"The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there will I cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." - Jeremiah 18:1-8
?
Here, contextually, God, as the Ultimate "Potter", clearly states that he can remold "marred" pieces of pottery, including whole nations, as He did with the people of Nineveh to whom Jonah was sent. This, of course, is perfectly compatible with Peter's decree that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Pet. 3:9). Calvin and you, on the other hand, insist that God predestines "marred pottery" to eternal damnation. You're in grievous error, my friend, and the sooner that you recognize this and repent of the same the better.
Anyhow, the videos are still there for any/all to view and they expose even more of Calvin's error than I've just documented here. Calvin was a heretic. Personally, I doubt that the man was even saved.
By way of reminder, I am leaving this forum for at least one month, beginning this evening, so when I drop out of this conversation suddenly, this will be the reason for the same.
Upvote
0
