First ,I think we should ask ourselves , why did He hate Esau
Next, how and or what makes one an Elect ?
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated
- Thread starter ByGraceThroughFaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
First ,I think we should ask ourselves , why did He hate Esau
Next, how and or what makes one an Elect ?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Does he say that God loved the entire human race? Or does he say that God loved the world? There is a difference. I don't think John means to say that God loved the entire human race. I think John means to say that no group of people is excluded. The Greeks are not excluded. Women are not excluded. Children are not excluded. The poor are not excluded. But did God love each and every Greek, each and every woman, each and every poor person?
Isn't the answer found in each and every life?
Some people believe that God's grace extends all the way up to the moment someone is offered salvation. It remains whether or not he or she will accept the offer. But, this picture of salvation doesn't seem to square with the Bible or our experience.
For example, consider the hymn "Amazing Grace".
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me,
I once was lost, but now I am found,
was blind, but now I see.
The person lost is found by someone else; the person blind was given sight. Salvation doesn't come by persuasion; it comes by healing, restoration, and rebirth. A person doesn't decide to get saved; a person IS saved.
Saving Love saves Eph 2:4-5
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
I repeat this from BB
I challenge you and all those who hold your views on salvation, to show from John 3:16-18, that God does not love the entire human race, with a SAVING LOVE, which is what this passage is about. Try IF you can!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
First of all, John doesn't say that God loved each and every human being. He said God so loved the world, and in that context, John intends to include his Gentile readers, i.e. both Jews and Gentiles. But not every Jew or Gentile will be saved.
Second, Paul's epistle to the Ephesians explicitly says that God predestined us.
For God so loved the world in John 3.16 is the entire human race. Or as John Calvin himself says EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
The entire human race is made up of Jews and Gentiles. If you are not the one then you are most certainly the other.
Only those out of the entire human race who repent and believe will be saved, the rest damned
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
With regard to the Greek word "kosmos" the meaning takes into account the entire created order. In fact, the word means "an ordered system." We get our word "cosmetics" from the Greek word "kosmos" indicating the means by which a woman might bring order to her face.
John is not talking about the human race as such, he is talking about the ordered system in which human beings live, and interact with each other. We aren't the world, we live in the world. Some of us live in the world but are not "of the world"
John 14:30
John 15:19
John 17:6
John 17:9
John 17:14-16
John 17:24
1 John 4:14
John tells us that God so loved the world that he gave his only son etc. and in his first epistle he tells us that the Father sent the son to be the savior of the world. But in his letters he also says but in his letters he exhorts us against loving the world. He tells us the world is passing away. The world hates us and doesn't understand us, so it persecutes us.
In other words, when John speaks about "the world" he is focused on human society, culture, religion, and politics. Jesus didn't come to destroy all that, John says; he came to save it. And how is Jesus going to save "the world" i.e. human society? He begins within the hearts of all those who will follow him.
It is the Greek authorities against the "theology" of the Reformed! The latter are FALSE!
J H Thayer
“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)
W Ardnt & F Gingrich
“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)
Edward Robinson
“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)
John Parkhurst
“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)
S T Bloomfield
“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)
G Kittle and G Friedrich
“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)
W E Vine
“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)
A T Robertson
The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God’s love appears also in 2Co_5:19; Rom_5:8
Do you believe Saving Love saves ? Here is proof Eph 2:4-5
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
Saving Love quickens dead sinners, thats save !
The Lord Himself, Who is the Highest Authority on ALL matters, says that unless a sinner REPENTS and BELIEVES in the Good News, they cannot be saved! No sinner can or is automatically "saved"!
God's GREAT LOVE is also for the entire human race, which is what John 3:16 says! You cannot accept this, because your theology is blinding you!
a person might have "saving love" for their marriage, but this does not mean that it will save their marriage! Don't use useless arguments!
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Romans 9 is not a discourse on the Calvinistic idea of salvation but is addressing Jews. The Jews were God;s chosen people, God used the Jews to accomplish His purposes, God even used the Jews disobedience in rejecting Christ to being about the death of Christ on the cross. But we know from Romans 11 God cast these chosen Jews off for their unbelief. Was God unjust, unrighteous in using the Jews to accomplish His purposes and then just cast them away? How could God use the Jews to accomplish His purposes but still find fault with the Jews (v19)?
Paul shows in Romans 9 that God in fact was just and righteous in casting off the elect people, the Jews. Because God used the Jews to accomplish His will, as the potter uses clay, this does excuse the Jew's disobedience. God has a right to punish those and cast off those who disobey Him. Using the Jews to accomplish His will did not obligate God to the Jews in anyway.
The Jews labored under the false idea that their being descendents of Abraham meant they must be the recipients of God's promises. John refuted that idea in Matthew 3:9 when he told the Jews "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.". In Romans 9, Paul also refutes the idea that God must base His choices/promises solely upon physical descent using Jacob and Esau to make this point.
Paul begins his refutation by saying "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (v7).
It was understood by the Jews Abraham had children other than Issac.
V8 "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
"children of the flesh' means Ishmael and Abraham's other children of the flesh proves that fleshly descent from Abraham does not make one a child of God. Again, John pointed this out in Matthew 3:9, being a Jew did not keep the rich man from being in torment.
Instead, being a child of God is based on promise.
Romans 9:9 the children of promise counted as seed would come thru Isaac.
Romans 9:10
Note that Paul did not use Isaac and Ishmael to make his point for if he did, the Jews would argue God made His choice on physical descent with Isaac being the true son of Abraham whereas Ishmael was the son of a handmaid. Therefore Paul skips a generation and uses Jacob and Esau. Both Jacob and Esau were the sons of Isaac whom the Jews considered Abraham's true son. Therefore the Jews could not use the same argument about Jacob and Esau they could use about Isaac and Ishmael.
Romans 9:11 nor could the Jews use anything either Jacob and Esau had done as being why God chose one over the other.
Paul's point: Esau was just as much a true descendant of Abraham as was Jacob, yet Esau was NOT chosen. Thereby proving to the Jew that God does NOT have to base His choices/promises solely upon physical descent. This refuted the Jews argument that they must be the recipients of God's promises.
Since God does not make receiving His promises upon being a physical descendant of Abraham does NOT make receiving His promises unconditional. God has made belief (John 8:24) repentance (Luke 13:3) confession (Matthew 10:32-33) and baptism (Mark 16:16) conditions to receive His promises and the Jews refused to obey God in doing these things (Romans 10:3), the Jews would not submit to the righteousness of God.
Romans 9:12 does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau but their descendants, Israel and Edom.
Romans 9:13 is quoted from Malachi 1 which also does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau for they had been dead for centuries by the time of Malachi, but is a reference to their descendents.....Israel is called Jacob and Edom is called Esau. It is not unusual for people to be called after their progenitor.....Genesis 36:1; Genesis 36:8; Genesis 36:19; etc.
Both Israel and Edom were disobedient to God and BOTH was deserving of punishment. Yet God showed His love for Israel by allowing them to remain a people in their homeland whereas Edom's land was laid to waste.
We know Israel had a long history of turning from God in disobedience, their Priesthood was corrupt (Malachi 1:6-10) and turned to strange gods (Malachi 2:11-12). We also know God cut off Israel in Romans 11. I conclude this process of casting off fleshly Israel began before the OT even came to and end. For we read in Hosea God declares He hates Israel "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters." I see from this that even before the OT came to a close that fleshly Israel and Judaism was near the end of running its course and God is now looking forward to the new Israel, spiritual Israel, the church. God had already rejected fleshly Israel by Hosea's time and that rejection was fully realized when the promised Messiah came to the the Jews and they rejected Him, thus God fully rejected the Jews as His chosen people, Romans 11.
There is nowhere in the Bible that God ever 'hated' the individual Esau. First, the choice between Jacob and Esau was not about election unto salvation but about election to do a task in bringing the Messiah into the world. God's choice of Jacob/Israel did NOT automatically mean Esau/Edom MUST be lost for most of the elect Jews were lost which is what Paul is dealing with in Romans 9 in God JUSTLY casting off elect people. Secondly, God's election of Abraham over Melchizedek did not mean Melchizedek would be eternally lost no more than God not choosing Esau/Edom meant they would be eternally lost. We know after the events of Jacob taking the birthright from Esau they forgave each other (Genesis 33:4,10).
Both Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom dwelled together in the same land and they both prospered so much the land could not contain the possessions of both (Genesis 36:7) whereby God gave Esau Mt. Seir to dwell in (Deuteronomy 2:5). Mt. Seir was a blessing to Esau not 'hate'. There is no indication that God ever hated the individual Esau or that Esau would be eternally lost.
How then can Romans 9 be used about election unto salvation, as far as election goes, when Romans 9-10 show elect people being cast off and non-elect Gentiles being grafted in?
God does not have a unconditional predetermined hate for any person or people. In Ezekiel 25, God's punishment of all those various people was NOT due to an unconditional predetermined hatred but due to those people choosing to disobey God. The Hebrew word for 'hate' in Malachi 1:3 is used in various OT passages NOT in God's 'hate" for men but "hate' for the sins men commit....
"The Hebrew word used in Malachi 1:3 for “hate” (Heb., sanati) is used in various other places to speak of hatred for the sin and wickedness of people (cf. Psa 26:5; 101:3; 119:104, 128, 163; Prov 8:13; Jer 44:3; Amos 5:21; 6:8; Zech 8:17), not hatred for the people themselves. In light of what many other biblical prophets say about the actions and behavior of Edom (cf. Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; Amos 1:6-11), this is how we can understand God’s hatred in Malachi 1:3.
God does not hate Edom; He hates how she has behaved. Specifically, God hated how Edom treated Israel."
Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?
Therefore the 'hate' of Edom Malachi 1:3 and 'hate' of Israel in Hosea 9:15 carries either the idea of 'love less' as some here have shown or it refers to hatred of sins men commit not hatred of men themselves.
Paul shows in Romans 9 that God in fact was just and righteous in casting off the elect people, the Jews. Because God used the Jews to accomplish His will, as the potter uses clay, this does excuse the Jew's disobedience. God has a right to punish those and cast off those who disobey Him. Using the Jews to accomplish His will did not obligate God to the Jews in anyway.
The Jews labored under the false idea that their being descendents of Abraham meant they must be the recipients of God's promises. John refuted that idea in Matthew 3:9 when he told the Jews "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.". In Romans 9, Paul also refutes the idea that God must base His choices/promises solely upon physical descent using Jacob and Esau to make this point.
Paul begins his refutation by saying "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (v7).
It was understood by the Jews Abraham had children other than Issac.
V8 "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
"children of the flesh' means Ishmael and Abraham's other children of the flesh proves that fleshly descent from Abraham does not make one a child of God. Again, John pointed this out in Matthew 3:9, being a Jew did not keep the rich man from being in torment.
Instead, being a child of God is based on promise.
Romans 9:9 the children of promise counted as seed would come thru Isaac.
Romans 9:10
Note that Paul did not use Isaac and Ishmael to make his point for if he did, the Jews would argue God made His choice on physical descent with Isaac being the true son of Abraham whereas Ishmael was the son of a handmaid. Therefore Paul skips a generation and uses Jacob and Esau. Both Jacob and Esau were the sons of Isaac whom the Jews considered Abraham's true son. Therefore the Jews could not use the same argument about Jacob and Esau they could use about Isaac and Ishmael.
Romans 9:11 nor could the Jews use anything either Jacob and Esau had done as being why God chose one over the other.
Paul's point: Esau was just as much a true descendant of Abraham as was Jacob, yet Esau was NOT chosen. Thereby proving to the Jew that God does NOT have to base His choices/promises solely upon physical descent. This refuted the Jews argument that they must be the recipients of God's promises.
Since God does not make receiving His promises upon being a physical descendant of Abraham does NOT make receiving His promises unconditional. God has made belief (John 8:24) repentance (Luke 13:3) confession (Matthew 10:32-33) and baptism (Mark 16:16) conditions to receive His promises and the Jews refused to obey God in doing these things (Romans 10:3), the Jews would not submit to the righteousness of God.
Romans 9:12 does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau but their descendants, Israel and Edom.
Romans 9:13 is quoted from Malachi 1 which also does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau for they had been dead for centuries by the time of Malachi, but is a reference to their descendents.....Israel is called Jacob and Edom is called Esau. It is not unusual for people to be called after their progenitor.....Genesis 36:1; Genesis 36:8; Genesis 36:19; etc.
Both Israel and Edom were disobedient to God and BOTH was deserving of punishment. Yet God showed His love for Israel by allowing them to remain a people in their homeland whereas Edom's land was laid to waste.
We know Israel had a long history of turning from God in disobedience, their Priesthood was corrupt (Malachi 1:6-10) and turned to strange gods (Malachi 2:11-12). We also know God cut off Israel in Romans 11. I conclude this process of casting off fleshly Israel began before the OT even came to and end. For we read in Hosea God declares He hates Israel "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters." I see from this that even before the OT came to a close that fleshly Israel and Judaism was near the end of running its course and God is now looking forward to the new Israel, spiritual Israel, the church. God had already rejected fleshly Israel by Hosea's time and that rejection was fully realized when the promised Messiah came to the the Jews and they rejected Him, thus God fully rejected the Jews as His chosen people, Romans 11.
There is nowhere in the Bible that God ever 'hated' the individual Esau. First, the choice between Jacob and Esau was not about election unto salvation but about election to do a task in bringing the Messiah into the world. God's choice of Jacob/Israel did NOT automatically mean Esau/Edom MUST be lost for most of the elect Jews were lost which is what Paul is dealing with in Romans 9 in God JUSTLY casting off elect people. Secondly, God's election of Abraham over Melchizedek did not mean Melchizedek would be eternally lost no more than God not choosing Esau/Edom meant they would be eternally lost. We know after the events of Jacob taking the birthright from Esau they forgave each other (Genesis 33:4,10).
Both Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom dwelled together in the same land and they both prospered so much the land could not contain the possessions of both (Genesis 36:7) whereby God gave Esau Mt. Seir to dwell in (Deuteronomy 2:5). Mt. Seir was a blessing to Esau not 'hate'. There is no indication that God ever hated the individual Esau or that Esau would be eternally lost.
How then can Romans 9 be used about election unto salvation, as far as election goes, when Romans 9-10 show elect people being cast off and non-elect Gentiles being grafted in?
God does not have a unconditional predetermined hate for any person or people. In Ezekiel 25, God's punishment of all those various people was NOT due to an unconditional predetermined hatred but due to those people choosing to disobey God. The Hebrew word for 'hate' in Malachi 1:3 is used in various OT passages NOT in God's 'hate" for men but "hate' for the sins men commit....
"The Hebrew word used in Malachi 1:3 for “hate” (Heb., sanati) is used in various other places to speak of hatred for the sin and wickedness of people (cf. Psa 26:5; 101:3; 119:104, 128, 163; Prov 8:13; Jer 44:3; Amos 5:21; 6:8; Zech 8:17), not hatred for the people themselves. In light of what many other biblical prophets say about the actions and behavior of Edom (cf. Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; Amos 1:6-11), this is how we can understand God’s hatred in Malachi 1:3.
God does not hate Edom; He hates how she has behaved. Specifically, God hated how Edom treated Israel."
Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?
Therefore the 'hate' of Edom Malachi 1:3 and 'hate' of Israel in Hosea 9:15 carries either the idea of 'love less' as some here have shown or it refers to hatred of sins men commit not hatred of men themselves.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Well, I wouldn't deny that the word CAN mean the entire human race. This is only ONE possible meaning. What a word "means" is the idea that the author intended to convey. The meaning I suggested best fits the passage.
Back to John 3:16, "Whoseover BELIEVES in Him", that is Jesus Christ, will be SAVED. Can you not grasp this simple Truth?
Similar threads
