CalvinOwen said:
God's not a persecutor, He's the Potter!
It is God's nature to love Jacob and hate Esau before they have done good or evil. This position in Scripture has no merit either. As a matter of fact, the following entire defense of God's Sovereignty by the Apostle Paul is a position of no merit because it defends God's hatred of Esau "for no reason."
"(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. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Romans 9:11-14
Here the Apostle Paul is arguing against those who think God is unfair for creating and hardening Pharaoh for the sole purpose of demonstrating His wrath. The Apostle is trying to nip in the bud those who might think God is "persecuting for no reason."
"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? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:19-21
But this entire analogy is based on
post-Fall man, not pre-Fall man. The point being made in Romans 9 is that God has all authority to create one vessel for honor and another for dishonor but His ultimate purpose is not made hollow by their lack of self-willed rebellion. The issue at hand here is that post-Fall man
IS created with a bent toward rebellion. Pre-Fall man was not. If you claim that he was then we are right back where we started with post-Fall man only there is no justifiable basis for Adam being held accountable for the state in which he was created. You see, you claim a misnomer to be true when you state that God loved Jacob and hated Esau "for no reason." There
was a reason. The reason just wasn't based on something of merit
in them, as the Arminians claim. God's "love" for Jacob is not an emotional referrence. It's an active referrence. All it means is that, on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice, God did not act toward Jacob in a manner dictated by the wrong done against Him. When the Bible says, "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" it simply meanst that God gave Jacob that which he most needed to be reconciled, i.e., forgiveness, while He withheld that same forgiveness from Esau. Neither deserved it but because God is the Judge and has the authority to extend His salvitic grace to whomsoever He chooses we, as His creation, have no authority to question not getting that which we didn't deserve.
Point being CO, God
did have a reason to hold Jacob accountable for sin whether he had personally sinned or not because, in Adam, all sinned and fell short of the glory of God. There was no precursor to the sin of Adam, at least not one that Adam was held accountable for, nor was Adam created with a sinful nature, so his accountability is based on his adherance to the covenant of works that God had established with him. As you have stated, their relationship was one of full communion. There was no obstacle between them. If, as you contend, God created Adam with a nature that already had an inclination to disobey then they could not, and would not, have had such a blessed communion, for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? If Adam already had a nature inclined to rebel then that is a sinful nature.
All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the imputation of corruption via the sin of Adam is only justifiable if Adam's nature did not preclude the possibility of consistant and everlasting obedience. Unless Adam was capable of perfect obedience, and that consistantly, then I do not understand how it is justifiable for God to hold Adam, and thus all mankind, accountable for the sins of a sinful creation, especially when it was the nature that God had created him with.
I'm not attacking your understanding. I just don't understand it. If your's is the correct interpretation then I, too, wish to believe it. I'm only asking that you do not become put off by my lack of understanding your point of view.
God bless