Kay

ChadH,
There are things we know for certain about Piper’s marriage – because he says himself – “rock solid” is not always an emotionally satisfying metaphor, especially to a woman” and they need “healing from the inside of my soul, through Noël’s heart,” to his credit, Piper admits “pride in my soul that…, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with Noël and others.”

We could speculate all day because pride has some basic manifestations, but one thing is obvious – that whatever Piper’s “species” are, they are serious enough to require giving his *full* attention to restoring the emotional bond with his wife.

Having a “rock solid” commitment to stay married is not the same as having a healthy emotional bond. I’m thankful that it seems Piper has recognized that.

I hope that his example will be followed by many in the comp. movement.

A. Amos Love,

Re:#76 – not 77 🙂 –
“so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Rom. 12:5

…here’s another ‘one’ thought for you.

“God has always shown throughout the Scriptures that the payment of the price must be accepted by faith so that the blood can be applied only by faith. In the OT in the Passover, the lamb had great value but the value was not applied to the account of the house unless the blood was applied onto the doorpost. All the examples in the Scriptures show the same thing – the price is paid and then the forgiveness is applied by the application of the blood.” – Cheryl

Mark,
Concerning this, I wonder – do you believe that the act of applying of the blood to the doorposts was a “work”?

Mark,
Now we see why you write things like:
“They want to hold onto God working, but equally hold onto autonomous free will.”

and then Cheryl has to explain with:
“The classical Arminian position does not hold to a completely “autonomous” free will since their view is that without God’s power enabling, no one could have a free will at all.”

and you said this:
“Now the atonement is clear in my view. Either it atoned and achieved a purpose or it didn’t.An Arminian position saids it didn’t achieve forgiveness, just that it made it possible, if people would just reach out and grab it.”

…to which I must say, this is not the Arminian position either.

Even before God created the universe He foreknew those who would trust in Christ’s blood and so be saved. But even if no one ever put trust in Christ, His sacrifice would still serve as the atonement provided. If all rejected that blood it would be tragic but God’s love nor His grace would have failed as a result.

Because a man rejects God’s atonement that does not make it void in any way. Does it? To say that it would is *man centered*, especially for those who hold to Calvinism and claim to disdain “man centered” theology. It would make the significance of God’s sacrifice dependent on man’s reception. But God’s justice would be vindicated even if every person rejected the provision of Christ’s shed blood. Right?

You object that Christ would shed His blood for those He foreknew would reject that provision. The first problem with this suggestion is it presumes to know what God would and would not do. This is again a surprising objection coming from someone who holds to God’s sovereignty to do just as He pleases (and of course Arminians believe God has the freedom to do as He pleases as well). But if God has indeed revealed that He provides atonement for those He foreknows will reject that provision, Arminians could just use the favorite Calvinist response to such objections, “Who are you O’ man to talk back to God?”

We can see from Scripture that God makes provisions even for those He knows will ultimately reject those provisions. This truth can be seen in the parable of the banquet described by Jesus in Matt. 22:1-14 and Luke 14:16-24.

In both of these accounts, it is obvious that the feast was prepared for those who would refuse the invitation (specifically the Jews). The invitation went out to them and the invitation was genuine. (God does not lie) They refused the invitation and angered the host. Now if the feast was not intended or prepared for these Jews, then why was the host angry with them when they would not come? According to the Calvinist objection, he never intended for them to come and made no provision for them, so there would be no cause for anger.

Now, look at Matt. 22:4. After the initial invitation was refused, the king sent his servants a second time saying,
“Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.”
Those invited refuse again and mistreated the servants. He then says,
“The wedding banquet is ready; those I invited did not deserve to come.”

Notice the reason why the guests were refused was not because the dinner was not provided for them, but *because they refused the invitation*, and by refusing proved unworthy to attend.

If the banquet had not been provided for them, then the king has no reason to be angry with them for not attending. According to Calvinism, the king never intended for them to attend – so, that would mean he lied when he told the guests that the dinner had been prepared for them. The issue, then, is not foreknowledge, but the genuineness of the offer and the integrity of God making the offer.

The idea that the response was the result of being already ‘elect’ needs to be read into the text and directly conflicts with the fact that the feast was prepared for all those to whom the invitation went out – even those who rejected that invitation.

As Cheryl has pointed out several times, Arminians do not need to redefine the term ‘many’ to mean ‘few’ as Calvinists do.

“I was never a hard core apologetic Armininan.”
“As i studied Romans 9-11, in the context of Romans as a whole, and as i looked at various commentaries, both reformed and arminian, my whole theology fell to pieces.
Looking at the text exegetically in it’s context i could no longer hold onto what i thought predestination was. As such i began researching reformed theology and thus my whole doctrinal position shifted.”

Mark,

Surmising from what you wrote here, while it appears that you perhaps you were a non-calvinst, but it’s also plain that you were never an Arminian in any solid sense. So that, whatever you “thought predestination was” was not Arminian doctine either.

Again, whatever your “whole doctrinal position” that “shifted” was, it wasn’t actually Arminian and this is why Cheryl (and others here) have to keep explaining the Arminian position.

The simple question I have for you is, ‘why’ would you be trying to refute a position that you obviously don’t know the facts of?

Mark,
For John 6:35-44, the view I hold regards who the “all that” refers to. Many calvinists identify the “all that” in verses 37 and 39 as “those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save.” It appears to me such an understanding cannot be justified when we compare the “all that” found in verse 39 with verse 40. Notice the parallel lines in the ABCCBA structure of verses 39-40

A raise them up at the last day
B that I shall lose none of all that he has given me
C this is the will of him who sent me
C’ For this is the will of my Father
B’ that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life
A’ raise him up at the last day

Note the connective word ‘de’ in verse 40. There is a logical connection between the last sentence and the following. This connection was self-evident in the ABCCBA structure of these verses. The “all that” in verse 39 whom the Father “has given” to Jesus is none other than “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him,” in verse 40. Both verses affirm that all believers will be raised up on the last day.

Quoting well known Calvinist F. F. Bruce: “In verse 39 ‘all’ is neuter singular (pan) as in verse 37a, and when Jesus says that he will ‘raise it (auto) up on the last day’ he speaks of the *sum-total* of his people. In verse 40 ‘every one’ is masculine singular (pas), and when Jesus says that he will ‘raise him (auton) up at the last day’ he speaks of each individual believer as in verse 37b.”

“The “all that” in verse 39 is identical to that in verse 37. In the first part of verse 37 the pronoun ‘all’ is neuter singular (Gk. pan), denoting the sum-total of believers. In the second part (‘the one who comes’) *each individual* member of that sum-total is in view. This oscillation between the (believing) community as a whole and its individual members reappears in verses 39 and 40.”

The “some” to be given to the Son are “the sum-total of believers” or “the whole mass of believers,” or better yet “all believers regarded as one complete whole” (Vincent, Word Studies, 2:150). Individual persons are not selected and then given to Jesus in order to *become* believers, as Calvinist’s assert, people are given to Jesus because they are *already believers*.

It is significant that the Greek word for “come”in verses 35, 37b, 44, and 45 is different from that of “will come”in 37a. “Will come” (heko) emphasizes the idea of reaching or arriving, whereas the one who comes (erchomai) to Jesus emphasizes the process of coming. In verses 35 and 37b, “comes” is a present participle that refers to ongoing action and is literally translated “coming.” It is synonymous with “believing” in this context. It is also significant that “believe” is used as a present participle in verses 35, 40, 47. Also, “believe” is used as a present participle in verses 35, 40, 47. Individual believers who keep on coming to Jesus in faith are promised that they will never be spiritually hungry (v 35a), nor will they be driven away or “cast out” from Jesus.

It appears that in verse 37a, Jesus does not specifically have the individual believer in mind, but all believers seen as a *collective whole*. It is they who will come to Jesus. The Greek word for will come (heko) is not a present participle but a future indicative. How is it that all believers, regarded as a complete whole, will come to Jesus or reach Him in the future? The answer is provided just two verses later by the other “all that” verse 39: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.”

According to verse 39, all believers as a group, regarded as a complete whole, given to Jesus will be raised up on the last day. In verse 37a, all believers, regarded as a complete whole, that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus. Each time the verb “raise up” (anistemi) is used in John (6:39, 40, 44, 54) it is in the future indicative like “will come” (heko). It seems resonable to conclude, from the immediate context, from the corresponding phrase “all that,” from the change in the Greek word and its tense, that “will come” to Christ in verse 37a is parallel in meaning with the phrase “raise up on the last day.” Certainly, “all” believers will come to Jesus in the resurrection.

Mark,
To me, at this point, it would be very helpful if you simply said which “brand” of Arminian you were and named, for instance, the theologians and teachers you read during that time (in the same way you now read Calvin)? I think this would go along way in our understanding.

Mark,
Lately, it seems that by the time I read through the blog, I’m too tired for more than short comments. I do want to weigh in on the John discussion, but like Cheryl, I’m at a busy time now (because of moving). Hopefully, I’ll have time tonight or tomorrow.

“Our will is not free- it is before rebirth corrupted by sin. Only God can enable us to desire him and thus choose his son as our own for salvation. So yes we are Robots- we always choose according to what we desire most. Our will is never free from our desires. Thanks be to God, that he has given us a new heart to will after Him. To enable us to follow Him rather than our natural sinful desire.”

Mark,
I wish you would explain for me how you made the choice to participate in the procreation of your own children with a clear conscience? It totally baffles me that someone who believes that many (maybe most) children are created by God for the sole purpose of reprobate eternal condemnation would choose to participate in that process.

Or maybe it is that you had no will choice. Is it that you were so irrisistibly compelled that you had no choice other than engaging in sexual activity with the mother of your children? Did she have no ‘choice’ as well?

Were any of your children conceived out of your “natural sinful desire” time before you became a believer with “a new heart to will after Him”? To you, is there any difference between having children conceived during the “natural sinful desire” state and having children conceived as a result of your “a new heart to will after Him”? Wouldn’t having ones as a result of your “natural sinful desire” time be against God’s will, since you believe everything done then was sin? Are those children here outside of God’s will?

“Adam dealt treacherously with God. In the midst of her deception, Eve did not realize she was disobeying God. That is the difference.”
TL,
Yes, exactly – they are not one and the same. They are two distinct things.

Mark,
Do you not see that there is a huge difference between being irresistibly forced to believe in Christ and being graciously enabled to believe?

What Alison said.
And especially this point: “He is also saying that Christ is insufficient for women, that they need something else beyond Christ, which is also idolatry!

That’s all of MacArthur I can take for today…

TL,
I think my pc is allergic to tracking cookies…so I must remain a Guest. But feel free, if you’d like.

“Would you be willing to go here”
TL,
Looks like you beat me to it. 😉

“Piper is also not the only one who gives out this kind of advice. He may be just the tip of the ice burg.

Cheryl, I think you are absolutely correct.
Here is a quote from a popular Hindu tract by Swami Ramsukhdas:

“Question: What should a wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?
Answer: The wife should think she is paying the debt of her previous life and her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this they can take her to their own house.
Question: What should she do if her parents don’t take her into their own house?
Answer: She should reap the fruits of her past actions. She should patiently bear the beatings of her husband. By bearing them she will be free from her sins and it is possible that her husband may start loving her.” – How to Lead a Household Life

This is courtesy of John C. Raines in The Justice Men Owe Women. He goes on to say that this is a common theme in most Eastern religious literature.

TL,
Amazing is right! I have another quote from a popular Hindu tract about wife beating that is equally as disturbing…I’m not sure it belongs on this thread – but maybe on the post concerning Piper’s advice for abused wives.
You know, TL, one thing that just really irritates me about comps/hierarchists is that they act like the rest of the world has gone viral feminist and that they alone are upholding the sacred teaching of male “headship.” When the truth is that it is alive and well to the utmost degree in Eastern religions!

Check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/19/iranian-cleric-promiscuous-women-cause-quakes/

“By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independantly, even in her own house.
In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independant.
Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elswhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshiped as a god by a faithful wife.
No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by a woman apart from her husband; if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
A faithful wife who desires to dwell after death with her husband, must never do anything that might displeas him who took her hand, whether he be alive or dead.” -The Code of Manu

This quote is from one of Hinduism’s texts. Eerily similar to what many hierarchists teach, isn’t it? I don’t normally have the stomach for reading Eastern religious texts, but this was included in some Christian mission literature.

Mark,
Honestly, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry over your reply…that wasn’t the only point of agreement we had. Here are our quotes side by side:
————-
Mark – “Yes the Edomites were ‘hated’ because of their wickedness (since God hates all wickedness), but God’s unconditional election of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with works and was determined before they were even born or had their ‘nations’.

Kay – “Paul even states that the reason God told Rebekah this was “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11).
Paul means to exclude personal merit from consideration of Jacob and Esau’s election. Such election is “not by works, but by him who calls.” God was perfectly free to choose either Jacob or Esau.”

Kay – “In Rom.9:7, Paul quotes Gen. 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac. The original context of this passage, God reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” In the following verses we read that “God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying …. ‘I will make him into a great nation’ …. God was with the boy as he grew up”(Gen. 21:17-18, 20)
In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Gen. 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac’s conception.
Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael is not primarily intended to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their *physical descent* from Abraham to guarantee inclusion in the covenant”

Mark – “I think you need to go back to the end of chapter 8. Paul is clear there that nothing can seperate us from God. That is the lead in poin to chapters 9-11. Now if that statement is true, then what has happened with Israel the nation- it would appear that God is a liar because through Jesus he has seperated himself from the nation of Israel. This is where you are missing a vital ingredient.

With this in mind then one can understand Paul’s argument in chapter 9. God’s word has not failed because salvation was never granted to the nation of Israel, but only’true’ Israel- the children of the promise. Paul defines this clearer in Gal 3:29, where Abraham’s seed or children are those in Christ.”

Kay – “Notice that this interpretation of Paul’s argument makes perfect sense of the Jewish questioner’s sense of injustice. No Jew would see injustice in God’s gratuitous election of Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau . The only thing about the argument that would have caused them to view God as unjust is the implication that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6), and for Paul, of course, to be a true descendant of Abraham was to follow him in *”faith”* (4:11-12, Gal. 3:7-8).”

Kay – “Rather than being a pleasant assurance of God’s favor, the statement, “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,” forms part of God’s indictment—that even though God had chosen to work through Israel, nevertheless Israel had been unfaithful, and was under judgment.

Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).”

Mark – “Therefore when we read Israel in verse 6 this is clearly Pauls usage. Not all of his ‘brothers’ or ‘people’ are true Israel. True Israel are not the natural children of Abraham but the ‘children of the promise’. These children are the one’s who are considered Abraham’s children.”

Kay – “Paul has shown in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of both Jew and Gentile, and justification not by the “works of the law” (3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22). He uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (Paul explains, Abraham is pronounced righteous by God *before* ‘circumcision’), and the practical implications of justification by faith.”

Kay – “Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob.”

Mark – “Pauls argument in 9-11 is to show how God’s word has not failed because he has not seperated himself from ‘Israel’ (in the true sense). That is why i said to go back again to the again of chapter 8.”

Kay – “Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).”
—————

So, it seems to me, that the problem you have with my view is not that my points are not valid – since many are the same as your’s – but that you don’t really have time to examine what I actually say to see the fact that I can come to them without calvinism(ie. #291 “I would love to write more but i’ve run out of time. Sorry”). Having time constraints myself, I really understand .

So, for now, it seems to me, more resonable and beneficial that you continue to carry on slowly with only the “John” discussion. And we can resume later, dv.

Mark,
It is clearly a waste of time to continue carrying on with this discussion when it has become obvious to me that you do not really read my comments.

I’ve suspected it for some time, but your last reply completely confirmed it – you actually tried to argue with me on a point I made that is IN AgreemenT WITH you.

I would point it out for you, but I see no use – because obviously, you already “know” what I’m saying even when I don’t say it. LOL

“Here we see clearly that Jacob is chosen unconditionally before they were born. Paul is very precise to include that it is not ‘because of works’. So your hypothesis that God chose the Israelites (Jacob) because the Edomites (Esau) were wicked is simply false and contradictory to Rom 9.”
Mark,

I agree that it is not because of “works.” But I believe it is also about claiming national ancestry as well. It appears you misunderstood my point – I was not claiming that God chose Israelites because the Edomites were wicked. Much later Edom was rejected because of their wickedness.

I agree, Paul has shown in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of both Jew and Gentile, and justification not by the “works of the law” (3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22). He uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (Paul explains, Abraham is pronounced righteous by God *before* ‘circumcision’), and the practical implications of justification by faith. Paul’s argument is nicely wrapped up at the end of ch.8, except for establishing the relationship between “justification by faith in Christ” and the historic relationship God has had with ethnic Israel. Even though Paul represents justification by faith not as a novelty but as something that began with Abraham, that does not answer the question of why God had related to His people Israel primarily on the basis of their descent from Abraham and on their keeping of the Law. The Jews, who had not been coming in great numbers to Christ, may well argue that if Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith were true, then God would have essentially broken His promises to Israel. If Israel sees inclusion in the covenant as based on descent from Abraham and keeping the Law, then how can God turn around and say, “No, inclusion in the covenant is not based on descent from Abraham or keeping the Law, but rather on faith in Christ”? It would seem to them that God’s word had failed (v.6), which is just what Paul is at pains to dispute.

In short, Paul’s line of argument in Romans 9-11 is intended to answer the specific charge that if the Gospel were true, God’s word would have failed regarding Israel. Many readers of this passage seem to keep this emphasis in mind only for a few verses, but in fact this charge is the primary position against which Paul is writing throughout the three chapters.

It is the essential position of the “questioner” that Paul invokes in 9:19-20, and is implied in several other verses (9:6, 16, 32). Remember, in chapter 3, Paul has already demolished the possible contention that Jews can rely on keeping the Law; however, Jews may still be relying on their descent from Abraham as indicating their inclusion in the covenant community. After all, the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of Israel are not contingent upon perfect obedience to the Law; in some ways, it appears that adherence to the Law is actually one of the promises to be fulfilled (Jer. 31:33). So, if Paul says that justification is by faith in Christ, and if this standard ends up excluding the majority of Jews, who have not come to faith in Christ, then he seems to void God’s promises to Israel.

Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob. In other words, the attrition that occurs with the generations of Isaac and Jacob does not stop there, but progresses throughout the descendants of Israel. It is in this sense that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6).

In Rom.9:7, Paul quotes Gen. 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac. The original context of this passage, God reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” In the following verses we read that “God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying …. ‘I will make him into a great nation’ …. God was with the boy as he grew up” (Gen. 21:17-18, 20). In other words, God has a positive plan for Ishmael and his descendants as well as for Isaac and his descendants; it is only as a member of the covenant nation that will bring forth the Messiah Ishmael is rejected.

Paul, significantly, interprets the quotation by stating that “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (v. 8). He is subtly doing here what he does clearly in Galatians 4:21-31: he identifies ethnic Israel with the children of Hagar, as opposed to those of Sarah. Since ethnic Israel is depending on natural descent from Abraham, they are identified with Ishmael, who was Abraham’s descendant (not to mention the firstborn). The Christians, trusting that “those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7), are identified with Isaac, the child of promise. In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Gen. 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac’s conception.

Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael is not primarily intended to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their *physical descent* from Abraham to guarantee inclusion in the covenant – if they could, then the descendants of Ishmael would have just as much right to claim as could the descendants of Isaac.

In case the Jews argue that Isaac was the legitimate son, as opposed to the illegitimate, Paul moves down to the next generation to find an even more compelling example, that of Jacob and Esau (9:10-13). These even have the same set of parents, and were born together as twins. The only natural primacy that one would have over the other would have been the birthright, which would have gone to Esau. And yet, before they were born, Rebekah was told that “the older will serve the younger” (9:12, quoting Gen. 25:23). Paul even states that the reason God told Rebekah this was “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11).

Paul means to exclude personal merit from consideration of Jacob and Esau’s election. Such election is “not by works, but by him who calls.” God was perfectly free to choose either Jacob or Esau.

But I contend the choice doesn’t involve individual “election” for personal salvation or damnation, but rather the line through which the covenant people will come. Gen. 25:23, which Paul quotes, clearly refers to nations, not individuals:

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

What is the subject? Individuals or nations?

So,“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13, quoting Mal. 1:2-3) looking at the source of the quote in context clearly shows that the *nations* are being referenced, not individual Jacob and Esau.

The point of comparison lies in the nature of the land that was given to the two nations. God had given preference to Jacob in the land that He gave to Israel. Malachi goes on to discuss the fact that Edom had come under such judgment that it would never be able to rebuild its land; but was this a foregone conclusion from before Jacob and Esau were born? It seems not to be. Deut. 2:4-6 suggests the opposite. God did not allow the Israelites to attack Edom or to take any portion of their land, stating that “I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.” This hardly seems consistent with a people whom God “hated.”

It seems that “loved” and “hated” in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 are to be understood that God had given preference to Jacob over Esau, in terms of the land received by their respective descendants, and in terms of whose line would comprise the covenant ‘nation’.

If you want to argue that “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” *must* refer to election for salvation, how do you account for the fact that this statement first appears, not in Genesis, but about 1000 years later in Malachi?

Do you contend that all of Israel in Malachi’s time are saved?

In fact, God indicts Israel throughout the rest of Malachi specifically because they have been “unfaithful” to the covenant and have broken faith with God in many ways. Rather than being a pleasant assurance of God’s favor, the statement, “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,” forms part of God’s indictment—that even though God had chosen to work through Israel, nevertheless Israel had been unfaithful, and was under judgment.

Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).

Notice that this interpretation of Paul’s argument makes perfect sense of the Jewish questioner’s sense of injustice. No Jew would see injustice in God’s gratuitous election of Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau as individuals. The only thing about the argument that would have caused them to view God as unjust is the implication that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6), and for Paul, of course, to be a true descendant of Abraham was to follow him in faith (4:11-12, Gal. 3:7-8). And this is just what Paul’s point is. Hopefully, I have been thorough enough this time that you can see my point.

“”I’m a bit concerned about your 7 points. None of your references mention at all that the Jews did not fear God. You are bringing that into the text.”

“”I am actually quite shocked that you would contradict this point. After all you were the one who said that Romans 3:10-18 applied to all unsaved people so that all people (except those who are “born again”) do not seek for God, none of them does good and none fears God. Now you are trying to say that this passage does not apply to the Pharisees?”

I was wondering the same thing.

“”How has any of what you said relate to Paul’s original point. Or how does using the OT here help Paul’s argument. Paul’s use of these references relates directly back to his claim that all israel is not israel- so it is clear it is about individual election.”
Mark,
Why do you assume that Paul’s phrase ” all israel is not israel” could only be refering to individuals and not groups?

“”Only the Jews were able to obtain salvation and atonement and not other people groups.”

True, but gentile persons could convert to Judaism (ie. Ruth or Ex.12:48-49) and be in the covenant group.

“”This is significant in the ancient cultures. Thus Esau lost his firstborn rights and his authority as the older brother.”

While that is true, it is also true that the *individual Esau* is never shown serving the *individual Jacob*.

If it is so clearly about individual election, then what part of “the older will serve the younger” has anything to do with eternal salvation? Why would this part need to be included?

I’m surprised that you completely discount that for Paul and virtually all Jews (and non-Jews in that culture) of his time, the group was primary and the individual secondary. Now, we *modern Westerners* view social reality in the opposite way: the individual is primary and the group secondary. Our view of the group is conditioned by our view of the individual so that the group both draws its identity from the individuals in the group and is seen as merely a collection of individuals.
But Paul’s, and his culture’s, perspective was essentially corporate. The individual was *not* viewed as standing on one’s own, but was seen as embedded in the group to which each belonged.

In that culture, corporate concerns generally took precedence over individual concerns, and when it did not, this was judged as wrong. Paul’s corporate interest can be seen in his primary concern for love and unity of the Body dominant in all his letters. Paul’s corporate perspective found *individual identity based in the group* – rather than vice versa.
So, given that the people Paul was addressing had this group over individual mindset, why would it be out of the question for him to use that to show which group the Christians were now a part of and how to be part of the group?

“how can it be far that God chooses Israel over the Edomites or any other nation. Even if you want to take the ‘national’ approach, you still have the same problem.”

But, Mark God didn’t do this unconditionally. The Edomites, descendents of Esau, were “hated”, *BecausE* of their *wickedness*.
“Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. (Mal. 1)

Cheryl,
Thanks! Yes. We are soooo much looking forward to it.

“P.S- in the coming weeks i may be slow to respond, as we are expecting our 3rd baby in a week or so. Please bare with me.”
Mark,
How wonderful. Congratulations!
I’m having a slow down of sorts as well – yesterday my husband accepted a retirement package …so we will be preparing for a move to our home state (close to grandchildren) over the next few weeks.

“Both of Isaac’s children have the same mother and indeed both are conceived at the same time, yet God in his sovereign mercy, chose Jacob and not Esau. Paul then quotes various Old Testament references showing his point from the scriptures- the older will serve the younger, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.”

Mark,
Let’s take a closer look at that.
“And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Rom. 9:9-13

Notice that Paul quotes two Old Testament passages, which he believed to support his point (“for the children … it was said to her, … as it is written”). Therefore, we should be able to look at these two passages in their *context*. By reading them, as Paul would have read hundreds of times, maybe you can better understand my point.

“But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said to her:”Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” Gen. 25:22-23

Rebecca was carrying two individuals, yes. But, God foresaw two people groups, and He clearly tells Rebecca. It is from this vantage point that God foretells her that the “the older shall serve the younger”. In other words, the nation that descended from the older brother would serve the nation that descended from the younger brother.

What part of “the older will serve the younger” has to do with eternal salvation?

As individuals, did Esau (older) serve Jacob (younger), or did Jacob serve Esau?

Wasn’t it Jacob who was terrified of Esau? (Gen.32)
Wasn’t it Jacob who bowed down 7 times before Esau? (Gen. 33)

In their lifetimes, Jacob came far closer to serving Esau, than Esau ever came to serving Jacob. So, if this prophecy referred to the individuals, it failed! And since God’s prophecies cannot fail, this prophecy of the younger’s supremacy must not be referring to individuals!

Esau’s people, the Edomites, tormented the Israelites during their journey to Canaan (Num. 20:14-21). It was only after over one thousand years, when Babylon and Greece attacked Edom, that we see a significant distinction. Israel survives as a remnant, but the Edomites were virtually wiped out.

“Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. (Malachi 1)

The Edomites, descendents of Esau, were a “people against whom” God’s wrath and indignation moved. They were “hated”, *because* they were *wicked*. This “hatred” is not absolute, but relative. The word, “hatred”, is only raised in contrast with God’s “love” for the people of Jacob. Remember that the Edomites were blessed with land and nation as well. Also, compare to Jesus’ usage of “hatred” toward family relative to the required “love” for Him, Luke 14:26. In this quoted context of Malachi 1, the ultimate distinction between Esau and Jacob was that God spared a *remnant* from Jacob’s seed, through whom came the Messiah, but Esau’s seed were destroyed because they became wicked. This context shows applicability to the role of the *nations* or people groups, not the *salvation* of the two original brothers.

So, where in all this did God’s election of Jacob over Esau pertain to an election of *individuals* unto *salvation*?
And again, what part of “the older will serve the younger” has to do with eternal salvation?

“Two, and following on the first point, the church’s confidence in the clarity of Scripture is undermined, because if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible.”

What a straw man!

Mark,
One more thing –
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world , that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” Ephesians 1:3-5

So, certainly God predestines certain events and outcomes, even that Jesus would die for our sins (I Peter 1:19-20). But it is a leap in logic to assume that God has predestined each Christian independent of their own free will. Unless you approach the verse with that as a prerequisite.

This passage is almost entirely ambiguous as to the basis of this predestination. The only language which refers to how Christians were predestined are the phrases, “blessed … in Christ”, “chose … in Him”, and “predestined … by Jesus Christ”. Each of these modifying phrases indicate that it is by being in Jesus, or as a member of His group, that one receives these *blessings*. The only “predestined” activity is that those in Christ would “be adopted.”

In Romans 11, Paul the analogy the olive tree to illustrate to Gentile readers the role of the Jewish nation in their salvation. “For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them , and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
“Because of unbelief they were broken off , and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off . And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in , for God is able to graft them in again.” Romans 11:16-23

Not only from this passage do we see the actual severing and removal of those who were once original, or natural branches, but we also see different branches, who were not originally branches, being grafted in their place. Consider Rom. 9 in light of this also.

If the election is ordained from before time, how is it possible that the ‘elect’ should become ‘reprobate’ and the reprobate could become elect? Moreover, how could “unbelief” be a condition of severance, while “continuing in His goodness” be a condition of blessing, if there are no conditions?

Mark,
Almost forgot my disclaimer for using the word “calvinist” – I’m not calling you one, just using it as a short cut sub of beliefs similar to yours.

“All i have heard so far is critiques of mine by humanistic reasoning, not the word of God.”
Mark,
O.k. here’s a look at Romans 1:18. These verses show the attributes and symptoms of depravity when one’s conscience becomes seared.
” Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.” Ephesians 4:17-19

In Romans 1, we find a passage describing how the pagan Gentiles became depraved.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.” Rom. 1:18-21

These verses credit certain Gentiles the same attribute of depravity, using the same words as in Ephesians, but how did they become this way? The passage says they knew God, *but* by their wickedness suppress the truth, did not give God the glory He deserves, were not thankful for lives, given to them by the Creator. How did they show this ingratitude?

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. For this reason God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Rom. 1:22-25

When these Gentiles became idolaters, God gave them over to their “lusts”. The words “For this reason” shows that it followed *after their choice*. They descended into the depths of moral depravity because of their desire to distance themselves from God and His will, so they became what they desired. God gave them over to what they wished and the consequences. (Rom. 1:28)

“Also the doctrine of predestination (unconditional) also emphasises God’s grace. Nothing we do or can do will save us. It is merely according to God’s pleasure and will that some are saved.
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Mark,
What I find in Romans 9 when looking into the context, shows that Paul was explaining God’s right to predetermine and use the nation of Israel to produce the Messiah.

The spiritual salvation of individuals, especially a predestined, unconditional election, is not the subject of Romans 9. Romans was written to a fellowship containing both Jewish and Gentile Christians. And their differing backgrounds presented problems for the congregation. Ch.9 is preceded by the encouragement, promise, and hope of security in the Lord of Romans 8:31-39. It was clear at that time, that as a nation, the Jews were rejecting God.

Both Jew and Gentile Christian might ask, “Had God not elected and predestined Israel?” Paul seems to have anticipated this question.
“For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” Romans 9:1-5

Ask yourself, “Who is Paul concerned about?” Is it not national, physical Israel? Paul, a Jew himself, states the subject as his “brethren” and “countrymen according to the *flesh”, not spiritual brethren in Christ.

Paul seems to here address the appearance that God’s promise and efforts failed for the Jews, for he says: “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Romans 9:6-8

Here we are introduced to the concept of “spiritual Israel” versus “flesh, physical Israel”. In 9:3-5, Paul discussed Israelites who were identified “according to the flesh”.
“For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Romans 9:9-13

Now, please ask yourself this question, “Up to this point, has Paul been focused on the election of *individuals* or *nations*?” Recall verses 1-5. Physical, national Israel has clearly been the topic of concern.

Unfortunately, the Calvinist begins reading at vs14 – without the benefit of the previous context. Consequently, although the passage never mentions salvation, the Calvinist ‘assumes’ that the discussion pertains to the predetermined, unconditional election of individuals unto salvation.

Did God’s choice of Jacob over Esau pertain to an election of *individuals* unto salvation? Or, did God’s choice relate to the roles of *nations* in God’s plan to fulfill the promises to Abraham and produce the Messiah?

Some Calvinist’ may acknowledge that the context of Romans 9:1-15 is indeed dealing with nations, not individuals, and reply, “But, that makes my point even stronger! God is sovereignly saving or condemning entire nations, not just individuals!” This statement overlooks the second aspect of the Calvinist assumption: The context is dealing with a nation’s role in God’s providence and plan to bring forth the *Messiah*, not the *salvation of a nation*. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that all Edomites were condemned and that all the Jews were saved.

From this point, he is arguing that God does not owe the Jews *spiritual salvation*, even if they are Abraham’s seed. People are saved according to God’s promise, not by virtue of their *ancestry*.

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Romans 9:14-16

Paul’s goes on anticipating a charge from a dissatisfied Jew – recall, it was Jews that Paul was grieving. It was Jews, who were not christians, despite being Israelites according to the flesh.

Does this passage reveal the *basis* of God’s choice? That purpose is not even mentioned here! Only assumption can inject a basis into the passage. *Again, we must be careful not to assume Calvin’s connotation of election and predestination.*

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory ..” (22-23)

Calvinists see the phrases, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”, and “vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand”, and assume Calvin’s definition of preparation – an unconditional, individual predestination.

We humans know how we must exercise longsuffering in following through on projects we start. We accidentally, or even deliberately dig a hole for ourselves and must labor to dig our way back out? But does God?

How can a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God ever exercise longsuffering with Himself? If He has sovereignly decided, decreed, and designed these wicked non-elect, then He is really being longsuffering with Himself! His efforts exerted upon these vessels that He alone prepared reduces to a struggle with Himself!

How can He possibly exercise longsuffering with them, essentially Himself, unless He failed to foresee, control, or prepare for these exasperating beings? … *Or*, unless He gave them an option, and He now bears with their abuse of His *freedom*? … If this passage teaches Calvinism, then it contradicts Calvin’s view of a supreme God.

“He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. Happy is the man who is always reverent, But he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity.” Prv.28:13

“Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7