Double Predestination/Predestinarianism

[janxharris]

No, Malachi 1:3 in the Hebrew and Romans 9:13 in the Greek both use the word "hate," not "like less." You appear to be making things up.

So does Luke 14:26 - what implications does that have for you under your interpretation of the literalness of 'hate'?

 

[janxharris]

Anyone care to deal with the above post?

 

[abacabb3]

One has an obvious context of shocking you, and the other is put plainly. In both instances, what is abundantly clear is that one party has favor over the other "hated" party.

Quite frankly, it undercuts your whole position Jan. If there is obvious favor and disfavor, then it only strengthens one's understanding how God can favor some more than He favors others.

 

[janxharris]

One has an obvious context of shocking you, and the other is put plainly. In both instances, what is abundantly clear is that one party has favor over the other "hated" party.

Quite frankly, it undercuts your whole position Jan. If there is obvious favor and disfavor, then it only strengthens one's understanding how God can favor some more than He favors others.

I'm not sure you are dealing with what you asserted:

No, Malachi 1:3 in the Hebrew and Romans 9:13 in the Greek both use the word "hate," not "like less." You appear to be making things up.

You are suggesting that God literally hated Esau such that He was beyond salvation. This is obviously not true, since, as I said, the word is a Hebrew idiom meaning 'like less' or 'favour less', and which is clearly demonstrated from Luke 14:26.

Obviously you don't literally hate your parents, so you must concede that God did not hate Esau to damnation. Jacob was favoured in that he was chosen to be of the line through whom Christ would come.

 

[abacabb3]

I don't need to concede that, simply because your whole point doesn't make sense. Your argument that GOd did not hate Esau, he merely liked him less. However, the Bible doesn't allow that reading. It shows the favoring of one over the other. THis means GOd can make discernible choices, case closed.


So, I pose it to you very specifically: Does GOd favor all people equally in the same way?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I appreciate you clarifying, though I still don't see how moral excellence of any sort would be required, as Christian's stand upon the moral excellence of Christ.

I absolutely agree; that's why I'm saying that a person's softness or hardness of heart is not necessarily tired to salvation.

This is not necessarily incorrect, and my gut would tell me that what you wrote here is essentially true. However, if we merely just read Romans 9, Paul sets up a dichotomy: 1 group whom God shows mercy, and another group where God shows the antithesis of mercy (just punishment).

Yes, but if read the whole of Romans, it because clear that Paul is not attempting to show how God universally operates in relationship to the damned, but only in terms of old Israel which has rejected Christ.

I addressed this another thread, but I feel if something is true of a group, how is it not also true of each individual in the group? And if that is the case, how is it any different?

Oh, it very well may apply to all individuals in the group. I'm not arguing against the possibility that God can actively damn someone in the Calvinistic sense of reprobation. I'm just saying that's not the only way he does it.

 

[janxharris]

I don't need to concede that, simply because your whole point doesn't make sense. Your argument that GOd did not hate Esau, he merely liked him less. However, the Bible doesn't allow that reading. It shows the favoring of one over the other. THis means GOd can make discernible choices, case closed.

So you are still arguing that God hated Esau. On the contrary, Jacob was favoured and chosen, but for what? He was favoured in being one of those through whom Christ would come.

You are not seriously suggesting that He was favoured for salvation are you?

Are you still maintaining that the literalness of 'hate'?

So, I pose it to you very specifically: Does GOd favor all people equally in the same way?

God favoured the Jews, but it came with responsibility. There is absolutely no sense of being given a leg up into heaven.

 

[cygnusx1]

If Paul was cognizant of divine election/reprobation, then why lament over his brethrens unbelief? God decided it would be that way didn't he (per your view)?
And Paul knew this (again, your view) didn't he?

Paul is lamenting God's decree? Obviously not. Paul knows full well that faith is within anyone's grasp which is why his lament is so genuine.

Paul isn't lamenting Gods decree per sa , he is lamenting the massive eternal mistake of the Jewish nation in largely missing out on salvation , his tears and agony are genuine , and so is His answer for why only a fraction of the Jews are saved , because God hardened some , and had mercy upon the rest.

The decree of God is not some cold calculus , it is The will of the God who must do all things right , a will that involves the suffering of God at its core , for His own Glory.

 

[cygnusx1]

So you are still arguing that God hated Esau. On the contrary, Jacob was favoured and chosen, but for what? He was favoured in being one of those through whom Christ would come.

You are not seriously suggesting that He was favoured for salvation are you?

Are you still maintaining that the literalness of 'hate'?



God favoured the Jews, but it came with responsibility. There is absolutely no sense of being given a leg up into heaven.

The entire context of Romans 9 is entirely about salvation and lack thereof .

The choosing of Jacob in Love , and the rejection of Esau by God before they were even born is equated with the mercy God shows to Moses and the hardening he shows to Pharoah . Paul's point is that God is always Sovereign in dealing with sinners who deserve nothing but condemnation.

 

[janxharris]

Paul isn't lamenting Gods decree per sa , he is lamenting the massive eternal mistake of the Jewish nation in largely missing out on salvation , his tears and agony are genuine , and so is His answer for why only a fraction of the Jews are saved , because God hardened some , and had mercy upon the rest.

Astonishing.

Paul apparently knows that God decided to elect and reprobate unconditionally and laments that some Israelites are in the reprobate group.

Where do you get this from?

The decree of God is not some cold calculus , it is The will of the God who must do all things right , a will that involves the suffering of God at its core , for His own Glory.

The decree you ascribe to God is outrageous and false.

 

[janxharris]

The entire context of Romans 9 is entirely about salvation and lack thereof.

The choosing of Jacob in Love , and the rejection of Esau by God before they were even born is equated with the mercy God shows to Moses and the hardening he shows to Pharoah . Paul's point is that God is always Sovereign in dealing with sinners who deserve nothing but condemnation.

Assertion without any clear argument to back it up.

 

[cygnusx1]

Assertion without any clear argument to back it up.

That is no serious response , just a quick dismissal .

Start with the first Five verses of Romans 9

It's entirety about salvation not just temporal privileges .

 

[janxharris]

That is no serious response , just a quick dismissal .

Start with the first Five verses of Romans 9

It's entirety about salvation not just temporal privileges .

My quick dismissal fits your quick assertion.

 

[cygnusx1]

My quick dismissal fits your quick assertion.

Just try sticking to scripture janx , Romans 9

Salvation of the Hebrews was foremost in Paul's mind , how come the Jews missed the Messiah ?
How can it be that the Jewish nation are by and large lost when the promises of Abraham were for the elect race ?

The answer is Unconditional election , the word of God hasn't failed as some suppose , because God never promised to save all Abrahams children (much less the entire populous of the world ) , Gods promise was to those in Christ , born from Christ seed in the Spirit. Not every descendant of the flesh , but according to the Spirit , and according to election.

 

[janxharris]

Just try sticking to scripture janx , Romans 9

Salvation of the Hebrews was foremost in Paul's mind , how come the Jews missed the Messiah ?
How can it be that the Jewish nation are by and large lost when the promises of Abraham were for the elect race ?

That is not correct, the promise was to Christ (Galatians 3:16).

The answer is Unconditional election , the word of God hasn't failed as some suppose , because God never promised to save all Abrahams children (much less the entire populous of the world ) , Gods promise was to those in Christ , born from Christ seed in the Spirit. Not every descendant of the flesh , but according to the Spirit , and according to election.

This is vague. The word 'saved' is not used until v.27.

 

[cygnusx1]

That is not correct, the promise was to Christ (Galatians 3:16).



This is vague. The word 'saved' is not used until v.27.

Nothing vague about it , salvation is being discussed right from Romans 1 through Romans 11 .
There is no divergence .


The children of promise , ie plural

 

[janxharris]

Nothing vague about it , salvation is being discussed right from Romans 1 through Romans 11 .
There is no divergence .


The children of promise , ie plural

I still don't see any evidence of UE.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, but if read the whole of Romans, it because clear that Paul is not attempting to show how God universally operates in relationship to the damned, but only in terms of old Israel which has rejected Christ.

It wuld be fair to say Paul's purpose in writing Romans was not to elucidate exactly how double predestination works, any more than Ephesians was written to talk about the predestination of individual believers. I just think that one can accurately extrapolate such principles and not-coincidentally see them apply and make sense in the whole of Scripture.

 

[abacabb3]

You are not seriously suggesting that He was favoured for salvation are you?

Yes I am. Just like Cornelius was favored for salvation over the vast majority of average people, who don't have heaven and earth moved for them so that they may here the Gospel and believe it.

Are you still maintaining that the literalness of 'hate'?

I don't see why not, but I am not a greek scholar where I can push the question (nor a Hebrew scholar where we can verify that the word carried a specific meaning over multiple languages). But as I maintained, even without knowing to what degree this hatred it (the full spectrum of disfavor to seething hatred), the point is clear. God bestowed saving mercy on one and not the other to make clear something specific:

"though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls" (Rom 9:11)

God favoured the Jews, but it came with responsibility. There is absolutely no sense of being given a leg up into heaven.

Actually, you would be incorrect. God favored the Jews and aside from a very few instances, the only way to even know God and have faith in Him was to be amongst His covenant people. Wouldn't this be preferential?


Now, I have no dob in this match where I feel compelled to prove to you why your continued misunderstandings on this issue are clearly wrong. I leave it up to you to read the Scripture and commend you to God's grace, because the message cannot be put any clearer and if it is I who am totally blind to its true meaning, or you, the blindness is apparently intentional from God. I cannot make you see something any more than you can make me see it. i can merely show it to you. If you don't see it, oh well.

 

[janxharris]

Yes I am. Just like Cornelius was favored for salvation over the vast majority of average people, who don't have heaven and earth moved for them so that they may here the Gospel and believe it.

You have not provided proof of favour unto salvation in either case.

I don't see why not, but I am not a greek scholar where I can push the question (nor a Hebrew scholar where we can verify that the word carried a specific meaning over multiple languages). But as I maintained, even without knowing to what degree this hatred it (the full spectrum of disfavor to seething hatred), the point is clear. God bestowed saving mercy on one and not the other to make clear something specific:

"though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls" (Rom 9:11)

You still haven't dealt with the awkwardness such an interpretation of 'hate' leads to in Luke 14:26

Romans 9:11 has no mention of predestined election unto salvation. It is certainly an example of God choosing whom He would work through - the line that would lead to Christ. Verses 30-32 refer back to such verses as this when Paul sums up what he has been arguing. The Jews thought that they could attain righteousness through the law, but Paul says otherwise. Verse 11 is an example of this fact, for the provision would come through God's sovereign choice...leading to the coming of the saviour, Jesus Christ. No man could by pass this and save himself through fulfilling the law. Righteousness would only come to those that exercised faith in God's provision.

Actually, you would be incorrect. God favored the Jews and aside from a very few instances, the only way to even know God and have faith in Him was to be amongst His covenant people. Wouldn't this be preferential?

This is assertion. How do you know the extent of God's interaction with mankind?

Now, I have no dob in this match where I feel compelled to prove to you why your continued misunderstandings on this issue are clearly wrong. I leave it up to you to read the Scripture and commend you to God's grace, because the message cannot be put any clearer and if it is I who am totally blind to its true meaning, or you, the blindness is apparently intentional from God. I cannot make you see something any more than you can make me see it. i can merely show it to you. If you don't see it, oh well.

Dob?

Sorry, but you have not come close to proving your understanding of Romans 9.

Romans 2:11
For God does not show favouritism.

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."