Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated.

[dennis777]

Romans 9;13 Amplified Bible

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Paul is quoting Malachi 1;2,3.

In Romans 9;12, Paul quotes Genesis 25;21-23:
the elder should serve the younger.

Esau never served Jacob (the individual men). But , the NATIONS which descended from the men (Israel and Edom) were being discussed.
Many years after the 2 twins died, Edom was subdued by the nation of Israel, and Edom served Israel.

God chose Jacob and the Nation Israel to bring the Scriptures, the Temple Worship, the Messiah into the world. And God rejected Edom for this task.

God ELECTED the bloodline-descendants (the Physical Elect) of Jacob/Israel to receive the "promise" (verse 8).

Within the (Physical Elect) Nation of Israel were Many who never were saved from their sins. Within the Elect Nation (Israel), there were a Few (a remnant) who were saved from their sins.

In New Testament times, there is no Elected Nation. But, there is a Spiritual Elect of Bible-believers who are saved from their sins (a Few from every nation, family, tribe, and language).

In the OT, the Elect Nation was promised Physical Blessings (good crops, prosperity, peace) in return for obedience to Physical rules (the Mosaic Law, don't eat pork, etc).

In the NT, Bible-believers are promised Spiritual Blessings (the fruits of the Spirit, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, etc) for Spiritual obedience to the Spiritual teachings of the NT.

So, there is a Physical Elect (the Nation) in the OT.
And, a Spiritual Elect in both the OT and the NT.
In the NT, the Spiritual Elect is emphasized.

Romans 9;13 has nothing to do with Calvinism. God did not arbitrarily choose Jacob and reject Esau.
The individual men were not being discussed. In Malachi 1, the context is the Nations (Israel and Edom).

In Genesis 25;21-23, the context is the Nations within Rebecca's womb (not the individual twins).

Dennis

 

[cygnusx1]

John Piper spent years (Literally) studying this chapter , he began his arguement by using those above , by the end of his study he was totaly changed humbled and at last understood the Chapter.

his book is still available


The Absolute Sovereignty of God

What is Romans Nine About?

November 3, 2002

(Romans 9:1-5)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

​

There are two experiences in my life that make Romans 9 one of the most important chapters in shaping the way I think about everything, and the way I have been led in ministry. One happened in seminary and turned my mental world upside down. The other happened in the fall of 1979 and led to my coming to serve this church.

When I entered seminary I believed in the freedom of my will, in the sense that it was ultimately self-determining. I had not learned this from the Bible; I absorbed it from the independent, self-sufficient, self-esteeming, self-exalting air that you and I breathe every day of our lives in America. The sovereignty of God meant that he can do anything with me that I give him permission to do. With this frame of mind I entered a class on Philippians with Daniel Fuller and class on the doctrine of salvation with James Morgan.

In Philippians I was confronted with the intractable ground clause of chapter 2 verse 13: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure," which made God the will beneath my will and the worker beneath my work. The question was not whether I had a will; the question was why I willed what I willed. And the ultimate answer – not the only answer – was God.

In the class on salvation we dealt head on with the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Romans 9 was the watershed text and the one that changed my life forever. Romans 9:11-12 said, "Though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call – she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’" And when Paul raised the question in verse 14, "Is there injustice on God's part?" He says, no, and quotes Moses (in verse 15): "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." And when he raises the question in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" He answers in verse 21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"

Emotions run high when you feel your man-centered world crumbling around you. I met Dr. Morgan in the hall one day. After a few minutes of heated argument about the freedom of my will, I held a pen in front of his face and dropped it to the floor. Then I said, with not as much respect as a student ought to have, "I [!] dropped it." Somehow that was supposed to prove that my choice to drop the pen was not governed by anything but my sovereign self.

But thanks be to God’s mercy and patience, at the end of the semester I wrote in my blue book for the final exam, "Romans 9 is like a tiger going about devouring free-willers like me." That was the end of my love affair with human autonomy and the ultimate self-determination of my will. My worldview simply could not stand against the scriptures, especially Romans 9. And it was the beginning of a lifelong passion to see and savor the supremacy of God in absolutely everything.

The Fall of 1979

Then, about ten years later, came the fall of 1979. I was on sabbatical from teaching at Bethel College. My one aim on this leave was to study Romans 9 and write a book on it that would settle, in my own mind, the meaning of these verses. After six years of teaching and finding many students in every class ready to discount my interpretation of this chapter for one reason or another, I decided I had to give eight months to it. The upshot of that sabbatical was the book, The Justification of God. I tried to answer every important exegetical objection to God’s absolute sovereignty in Romans 9.

But the result of that sabbatical was utterly unexpected—at least by me. My aim was to analyze God’s words so closely and construe them so carefully that I could write a book that would be compelling and stand the test of time. What I did not expect was that six months into this analysis of Romans 9 God himself would speak to me so powerfully that I resigned my job at Bethel and made myself available to the Minnesota Baptist Conference if there were a church who would have me as a pastor.

In essence it happened like this: I was 34 years old. I had two children and a third on the way. As I studied Romans 9 day after day, I began to see a God so majestic and so free and so absolutely sovereign that my analysis merged into worship and the Lord said, in effect, "I will not simply be analyzed, I will be adored. I will not simply be pondered, I will be proclaimed. My sovereignty is not simply to be scrutinized, it is to be heralded. It is not grist for the mill of controversy, it is gospel for sinners who know that their only hope is the sovereign triumph of God’s grace over their rebellious will." This is when Bethlehem contacted me near the end of 1979. And I do not hesitate to say that because of Romans 9 I left teaching and became a pastor. The God of Romans 9 has been the Rock-solid foundation of all I have said and all I have done in the last 22 years..

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/s...02/110302.html

 

[cygnusx1]

Although Israel Has Failed, God’s Word Has Not
(9:6-13)

On the surface of the issue it might seem to some that Israel’s failure is to be explained as God’s failure—that it is really the Word of God that has failed, since what it appears to have been promised has not come to realization. Paul approaches the problem by first of all clarifying just what the Scriptures promised. The error of assuming God’s Word to be at fault is two-fold. First of all the Scriptures never promised blessing to every physical descendent of Abraham. Second, the basis of God’s blessing is not to be found in one’s physical relationship to a particular forefather, but rather to one’s spiritual relationship to God by faith.
As Paul introduces the subject of election, there is something we are to understand about it. The devout, but unbelieving, Jew not only delighted in it, but depended on it. The Jew was a devout believer in the doctrine of election—that is the doctrine of corporate election. They relished the thought that God had selected them from all the nations of the earth to be the recipients of all the blessings and privileges described by Paul in verses 4 and 5. They had no problem in viewing all the other nations as the ‘non-elect.’ They were perfectly content to relegate the heathen to hell.
Paul uses the theological position of the Jews as the starting point of his argumentation, but he presses their theology much farther than they intended. He takes the principle of election which they accepted on a national level, and applies it on an individual level.49 If Israel could delight in their national election, then their dilemma of why so many Israelites disbelieved could be explained on the basis of individual election. Why were so many Jews failing to arrive at God’s promised blessings? Because God had chosen them to be blessed by salvation. While Israel’s erroneous claim on God’s blessing was based upon their ancestry and their works, the cause of blessing was God’s calling by free choice. Such a claim must be documented, so Paul turns to the example in Israel’s history of Isaac and Jacob.
The Example of Isaac, Not Ishmael (vv. 7-9). If blessing was guaranteed by physical relationship to Abraham, then many Gentiles would have the same claim as did the Jews for Abraham was the father of more than just Isaac. Ishmael would have equal claim to the blessings of the Jews if physical lineage was the sole cause of blessing. But as the Scriptures stipulated: “Through Isaac your descendants will be named” (Romans 9:7b, Genesis 21:12). Ishmael was the result of Abraham’s feeble efforts to bring about what God had promised, but Isaac was the product of God’s work in fulfillment of His promise of a son.
The Example of Jacob, Not Esau (vv. 10-13). To some, the example of Isaac might not be convincing because each child had a different mother. If this is a problem, it will be swept away by the example of Jacob and Esau, for they had the same father and mother; in fact, they were the offspring of the same conception, since they were twins.
Surely all must grant that God specified the blessing to come through the seed of Jacob, and not Esau. This confirms again that the blessings of God do not belong to men purely on the basis of origin. But what is the basis of God’s designation of Jacob over Esau? The Jews would claim that it was because of some obligation which God had to Jacob, but the Genesis narrative does not support such a claim. God’s choice was not conditioned by any human activity or instrumentality, but was determined solely on the free choice of God.
God’s choice was apart from custom or tradition, for tradition would have granted supremacy to the first-born child, Esau. Neither was God’s choice influenced by any good which would be done by Jacob, or any evil done by Esau, for Paul insists, “For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls” (Romans 9:11).
Of course, God knew what Jacob and Esau would do, but His choice was not a result of this knowledge. Indeed God’s choice of Jacob was in spite of such knowledge, for he was a rascal.50
What, then, was the basis of God’s choice of Jacob over Esau? God acted not out of any obligation, but rather out of His sovereignty, and thus chose freely on the basis of His own will. The election of God is not based upon the works of the individual, but on the will of God. “… in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls” (Romans 9:11b). As the Scripture says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, Malachi 1:2f).51
Let us be sure we fully understand what Paul has said about divine election, for there are many misconceptions of this doctrine. Some would explain election in this way: God is voting for us; Satan, against us; and we must break the tie. Others have said that God has determined a certain number of elect, but not the specific individuals—that is up to us. Others seem to say that God has elected us ‘in Christ’ and therefore, whoever are in Christ are the elect. Again, this leaves the ultimate determination of who the elect will be to the elect themselves. This is the position, apparently, of W. B. Riley, when he states, “The soul’s election depends upon the soul’s choice. Thou, my friend are the only person who can settle this question of election. It is not settled in Heaven; it is settled on earth. It is not settled of the Lord; it is settled by man.”52
Even a casual reading of Romans 9 demands that we hold an entirely different position than those just mentioned, for the election of men to eternal salvation is the work of God, and I am grateful for it. If my election depended upon me casting my vote in favor of God, I would be forever damned, for my unregenerate will would always vote against God, for as an unbeliever I was dead in my sins, and by nature God’s enemy and a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:10-18). No other kind of election could be attributed to a God Who is truly sovereign than that which is described by Paul in Romans 9, for sovereignty implies absolute freedom and complete independence of action. God’s decisions are not contingent upon ours. Our decisions are contingent upon His.
Here, then, is the answer to the problem of Jewish unbelief. Israel’s unbelief was not a failure of the Word of God, but an outworking of the will of God. Israel failed because God willed it so. God’s reason for Israel’s unbelief will be explained in chapter 11, but for now we must accept the fact that God, far from being obliged to bless every Jew on the basis of his ancestry, is free to choose whomever He wills and to reject whom He wills. Such was evident from God’s previous dealings with the nation.



49 It is assumed by this writer that although Paul’s starting point is that of national election, he shortly presses to individual election. This view is supported by many commentators. Murray deals with this question extensively and concludes that the election of which Paul speaks is individual for several reasons: (1) Paul’s use of the terms ‘election’ and ‘purpose’ in other passages is clearly soteriological. (2) Corporate election doesn’t answer the question Paul has raised, only individual election does. (3) In Romans 11:5, 7 the same term ‘election’ is used in contrast with ‘hardening’ and there election is clearly referring to individual salvation. (4) The clause ‘not of works, but of him that calleth’ refers to the effectual calling of the sinner to salvation through the work of Christ. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), Vol. II, pp. 15-20.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1175

 

[Elect]

John Piper spent years (Literally) studying this chapter , he began his arguement by using those above , by the end of his study he was totaly changed humbled and at last understood the Chapter.

his book is still available


The Absolute Sovereignty of God

What is Romans Nine About?

November 3, 2002

(Romans 9:1-5)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.



​

There are two experiences in my life that make Romans 9 one of the most important chapters in shaping the way I think about everything, and the way I have been led in ministry. One happened in seminary and turned my mental world upside down. The other happened in the fall of 1979 and led to my coming to serve this church.

When I entered seminary I believed in the freedom of my will, in the sense that it was ultimately self-determining. I had not learned this from the Bible; I absorbed it from the independent, self-sufficient, self-esteeming, self-exalting air that you and I breathe every day of our lives in America. The sovereignty of God meant that he can do anything with me that I give him permission to do. With this frame of mind I entered a class on Philippians with Daniel Fuller and class on the doctrine of salvation with James Morgan.

In Philippians I was confronted with the intractable ground clause of chapter 2 verse 13: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure," which made God the will beneath my will and the worker beneath my work. The question was not whether I had a will; the question was why I willed what I willed. And the ultimate answer – not the only answer – was God.

In the class on salvation we dealt head on with the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Romans 9 was the watershed text and the one that changed my life forever. Romans 9:11-12 said, "Though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call – she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’" And when Paul raised the question in verse 14, "Is there injustice on God's part?" He says, no, and quotes Moses (in verse 15): "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." And when he raises the question in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" He answers in verse 21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"

Emotions run high when you feel your man-centered world crumbling around you. I met Dr. Morgan in the hall one day. After a few minutes of heated argument about the freedom of my will, I held a pen in front of his face and dropped it to the floor. Then I said, with not as much respect as a student ought to have, "I [!] dropped it." Somehow that was supposed to prove that my choice to drop the pen was not governed by anything but my sovereign self.

But thanks be to God’s mercy and patience, at the end of the semester I wrote in my blue book for the final exam, "Romans 9 is like a tiger going about devouring free-willers like me." That was the end of my love affair with human autonomy and the ultimate self-determination of my will. My worldview simply could not stand against the scriptures, especially Romans 9. And it was the beginning of a lifelong passion to see and savor the supremacy of God in absolutely everything.

The Fall of 1979

Then, about ten years later, came the fall of 1979. I was on sabbatical from teaching at Bethel College. My one aim on this leave was to study Romans 9 and write a book on it that would settle, in my own mind, the meaning of these verses. After six years of teaching and finding many students in every class ready to discount my interpretation of this chapter for one reason or another, I decided I had to give eight months to it. The upshot of that sabbatical was the book, The Justification of God. I tried to answer every important exegetical objection to God’s absolute sovereignty in Romans 9.

But the result of that sabbatical was utterly unexpected—at least by me. My aim was to analyze God’s words so closely and construe them so carefully that I could write a book that would be compelling and stand the test of time. What I did not expect was that six months into this analysis of Romans 9 God himself would speak to me so powerfully that I resigned my job at Bethel and made myself available to the Minnesota Baptist Conference if there were a church who would have me as a pastor.

In essence it happened like this: I was 34 years old. I had two children and a third on the way. As I studied Romans 9 day after day, I began to see a God so majestic and so free and so absolutely sovereign that my analysis merged into worship and the Lord said, in effect, "I will not simply be analyzed, I will be adored. I will not simply be pondered, I will be proclaimed. My sovereignty is not simply to be scrutinized, it is to be heralded. It is not grist for the mill of controversy, it is gospel for sinners who know that their only hope is the sovereign triumph of God’s grace over their rebellious will." This is when Bethlehem contacted me near the end of 1979. And I do not hesitate to say that because of Romans 9 I left teaching and became a pastor. The God of Romans 9 has been the Rock-solid foundation of all I have said and all I have done in the last 22 years..

[URL="http://www.desiringgod.org/library/s...02/110302.html"]http://www.desiringgod.org/library/s...02/110302.html[/URL]

That is awesome!

 

[cygnusx1]

Luke 13;34 Amplified Bible
O Jerusalem, you who continue to kill the prophets and to stone those who are sent to you! How often I have desired to gather your children together around Me, but you would not!

The NLT translation says "but you wouldn't let Me!".

poor god ............ He wanted something but superhumans wouldn't let him have it ........

Calvin's Jesus/God would NEVER say "but you wouldn't let Me".

Thank God for that!

But the Real Jesus/God (the Christian Jesus of the Bible) said it.

***********

No He didn't!

Genesis 4:7 Amplified Bible
If you do well, will you not be accepted?

Cain knew what God required, but he didn't do it.
God said to Cain: If you do what I require, I will accept you.
God said to Cain: If you refuse to do what I require, you'll die in your sins.

God does not choose one person, and reject another for flippant, arbitrary, partial reasons (or non-reasons).
God accepts whosoever will believe and repent.

you are burning a straw donkey .........

Calvinism is a slander/libel against God's good character.
**********

Arminians slander and libel God , they say God cannot do what He wants to do , because man will not let Him!

Jesus/God commanded me to "Love your enemies. Do good to all people, even those who hurt you. If you find a donkey wandering away from your enemy, return the donkey to your enemy."

But, Calvin's Jesus/God hated more people than He loved. 2000 years ago, He preached to all people in the Holy Land, while He Loved a Few, and Hated the Many , for some un-stated reason (or non-anti-reason).

if you can find no reason then you cannot argue against IT !!!

My point is: Jesus commanded me to love all people (even my enemies).
Calvin's Jesus did NOT Love all people. He hated more people than He loved.

smell burning straw anyone ...

I (as in-adequate, imperfect, and evil as I am) am more Righteous and Loving than Calvin's Jesus/God.

*******

ME ME ME ME ME

I recommend Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?".

dennis777

A GREAT BOOK FOR EXPOSING THE EMOTIONAL CONTENT IN HUMANS HEADS , AND EXP[OSING THE AUTHOR AS A POOR SCHOLAR , HE EVEN FALSELY CLAIMED C.H. SPURGEON DIDN'T BELIEVE IN LIMITED ATONEMENT , WHEN ANYONE WHO HAS READ SPURGEON KNOWS HE PROCLAIMED A LIMITED ATONEMENT THAT ACTUALLY SAVES SINNERS.

 

[cygnusx1]

WAIT A MINUTE ............... I THINK THIS PERSON HAS BEEN BANNED ??

I HAVE BUMPED INTO A TROLL ..........

 

[cygnusx1]

edit ..... the mods have now arrived thanks bill

 

[dennis777]

Jacob is listed in Hebrews 11 as a "Hero of Faith".

Where is Esau's name in the Heroes of Faith? It isn't there!

Jacob was changed from a rascal/supplanter/deceiver into a Hero of Faith.
And God changed his name from Jacob to Israel.

Esau despised his birthright. He was carnal, fleshly, and God never changed his name to a better Name.

Jacob wrestled with God and with man. And Jacob began to trust in the God of Abraham and Issac.

God counted Jacob/Israel as a Hero of faith, because Jacob chose to have Faith in God. Jacob/Israel became a believer in God.

Regeneration/salvation/justification does not precede faith.

Paul told the Phillipian jailor the Way to be saved from your sins: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.

Calvin's way to be saved is backwards: "After you get saved, then you have faith."

Calvin wanted the "Heroes of Faith" chapter changed to be "Heroes of Flippant, Arbitrary, Random Election".


dennis777

 

[Beoga]

I recommend Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?".

dennis777

Your entire post was utter foolishness, but this is where you lost all credibility. Dave Hunt is no scholar, and he is completely ignorant when it comes to the doctrines of Grace. James White demonstrates this (especially in the book Debating Calvinism).

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

MOD Hat!!
Please confine your posts here if you are not reformed to fellow ship posts only there is no debating by members who are not "reformed.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Since Mr. Dennis brought up Romans 9 I think it only proper to re-post a this stuff below on Romans 9. If Mr. Dennis would like to discuss the stuff below he can PM me.

In Christ,
Kenith

+++++++++++++++++
In Romans 9:14-20 Paul writes, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

What does Paul say? He says that salvation is based on God's choice, and it is not man's will that is ultimate in this matter. He then says that He raised up Pharaoh to smash him, as a witness to the world. Next Paul says "hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Paul is speaking of God working with and in men. To some He shows mercy and others He hardens.

This is a repugnant thought to most of us, and Paul knows how you, me and nearly everyone else, when we first see these things in Scripture, will react negatively to them. He knows we will recoil in horror from these hard things he is saying. They are anathema to us; we don't like it. Has God made us robots? If this is true than we wish to ask as he says the Romans and ask "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

Now look at Pauls answer "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, 'Why hast thou made me thus?'"

Notice Paul didn't even answer the question that he asked for us. Instead he says that we are completely out of bounds to even ask such a question. Paul, in these verses, has personally taken on the robot/puppet/fatalism arguments that are so often thrown out by those that dislike these teachings, and tells us that we creatures are out of line to ask this question. We are God's creation and He does as He will with us.

Paul is not yet finished with his line of thought. He then asks "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Folks, we are the clay. God according to His will has made some for honor and some for dishonor. HARD STUFF, but Paul is not yet through. He now says "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..."

Those are more difficult words. Paul says that God "willing shew His wrath, and make His power known, endured with long suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." The word "fitted" means prepared. After quoting the Greek sentence, Thayer’s in his Greek Lexicon, gives this rendition "of men whose souls God has so constituted that they cannot escape destruction." Those of us who receive mercy were "prepared afore," which simply means ordained before hand. Some folks are ordained for mercy and some are not.

It should not seem odd that Paul should make such strong statement about God's sovereignty over the salvation of men. I am sure you recall his dramatic conversion. After that Ananias came to Paul and said to him "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth."

So Paul was chosen by God. Notice God chose Paul (of course Paul responds in faith, but it is the Lord who initiated things). But you will say, Paul is special; he is different from the rest of us. I don't think you will find Paul making such a claim. Let's see what he says in his epistles.

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." (Rom 16:13)

Rufus too was chosen by God, so it is not only Paul.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Eph. 1:4)

The "us" here is speaking of Christians; we were chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. We are all by nature sinners, fallen in Adam, at enmity with God, spiritually dead. But God, before he created anything chose us to be holy. He makes us holy in this life by the imputation of Christ righteousness. It is His choosing and it is he that makes us blameless in Christ.

Not only that, but He predestinated (ugly word indeed and it means the same as foreordain) the same group "us," who were chosen in eternity, unto adoption. Ok, but it is still because of my will. Right? No. It is according to God's will.

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Eph. 1:5)

Of course Paul says the same thing about WHO's will is the deciding factor in Romans 9:15-16 and there too he makes clear that it's God's will and not man's.

This stuff, at first , rubbed me the wrong way. I literally hated these things. When studying this subject many years ago I threw a book promoting the biblical doctrine of predestination across my bed room as hard as I could and cried out "I'm not going to believe that garbage." I prayed that God would show me that it was a lie, instead He showed me that these things are indeed true. He then gave me the grace to bow before His Holy Word and accept even this hard doctrine that rubs our "self" and our desire for autonomy the wrong way.

Today, I love these things, because they give God all glory, honor and praise. All things were made for His glory not ours.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

++++

 

[heymikey80]

To me the clear indication of the words constantly refer to individual human beings. So if we take a literal hermeneutic we really shouldn't turn aside from that unless we have as clear an indication we should.

CajunHuguenot quoted a verse that I think is the fulcrum of the argument against this nationalistic election view of Romans 9. Paul pushed his argument forward after citing Isaac, Jacob & Esau, and Pharaoh, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" I'm not sure how this question could be asked or implied, if nations were intended. Why would nationalistic election even conceive of this question?But Paul's answer to it shows that nations are not intended. Paul responds to his hypothetical questioner, using the individual questioner as an example -- not another nation.

As I look backward into the earlier verses in Romans 9 I see other indications of this individualistic election. All the examples are of individuals. There's a specific reference to almost all as human individuals, too, at 9:9 (to Isaac's human parents), 9:10 (to J&E's mother), 11 (on being born).

In fact, if Paul hadn't specifically excluded it in Rom 9:8, fleshly descendance would have been an easy argument from national election here, too. I wonder if we notice how 9:8 seems to counter against the idea of national election here -- your fleshly descendants are likely (as in ancient times) citizens of your country. Yet in 9:8 Paul is specifically arguing this is not the kind of election God means: "that is, the children of the flesh -- these are not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed".

 

[Iosias]

Your entire post was utter foolishness, but this is where you lost all credibility. Dave Hunt is no scholar, and he is completely ignorant when it comes to the doctrines of Grace. James White demonstrates this (especially in the book Debating Calvinism).

Indeed, Hunt states that Spurgeon did not agree with limited atonement which is factually incorrect and Hunt knew full well it was wrong for many told him before he published.

 

[Iosias]

The context of Romans 9 is individual salvation. Indeed St. Paul is dealing with the question as to why not all Jews as individuals were being saved. So Pauls shows that it is due to God's sovereign choosing. He chose Jacob but not Esau and in the same way some Jews are saved because like Jacob they were chosen, whilst other Jews were not saved because like Esau they were not chosen.

 

[seekingpurity047]

My point is: Jesus commanded me to love all people (even my enemies).
Calvin's Jesus did NOT Love all people. He hated more people than He loved.
I (as in-adequate, imperfect, and evil as I am) am more Righteous and Loving than Calvin's Jesus/God.

*******

I recommend Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?".

dennis777

This is a typical argument, and it is very weak. So, are you trying to say that God loves all people in the same way? That's what it sounds like you are implying.

Read this scripture, and tell me if God loves the Church more than those who are not part of the Church.

Eph. 5:25-27

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

If God loved everyone in the exact same way, then I think He would have commanded us to love our wives "as Christ loved everyone and gave himself up for everyone, that he might sanctify everyone, having cleansed everyone by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present everyone to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that everyone might be holy and without blemish." Surely, you don't believe that, do you? If so, then you are in deep deep deep theological error. God loves the Church more than the reprobate. Recognize that.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Seaioth]

I recommend Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?".

dennis777

Dave Hunt? I last thing I read from him (embarassed) was A Woman rides the Beast. Basically his railing against the Roman Catholic Church.

I recommend that you read the Calvinist Arminian Debate between Dave Hunt and James White.

May God have grace on you and forgive you for your ignorance, as He has forgiven and shown grace to me, being in the past, hostile to Calvinism.

Isaiah 55:8-9