Jacob Loved, Esau Hated

[HammondCheese]

You have committed the hermeneutical fallacy of double entendre. You have to manipulate the straight forward meaning of the text.

Where are you reading innuendo in my exegesis??  I'm the one weighing Scripture with Scripture.  You seem to have an issue referencing ANY Scripture...

You want to avoid the idea that God chooses individuals.

God has always chosen individuals for many reasons...  But not to facilitate Reformed Theology.  He chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the very passage we are discussing - but not for Justification.  You simply lack understanding of the seed of Abraham as well as the seed of promise.

In doing so, you look at the names ?Jacob? and ?Esau? and admit they are individuals but insist that Paul meant God chooses nations. Your idea of ignoring Rachel and Isaac by saying they are ?family,? not individuals is strange.

That's because in the context of Romans 9, he is.  Have you not read Gen 25:23 that I referenced earlier?? 

"And the Lord said unto her (Rebekah), TWO NATIONS are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

Rachel was not even mentioned in Romans 9. ??  And I don't know how you think I am ignoring Isaac...  I've referenced him multiple times.  And my point about "family" was simply pointing out that it's no coincidence that the aforementioned individuals were all the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

So Paul didn't choose random people that were 'elected' unto Salvation...  He was mapping out the genealogy of the seed of Abraham - because "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6) because the seed of Abraham only continued through the tribe of Judah.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Where are you reading innuendo in my exegesis??  I'm the one weighing Scripture with Scripture.

The double-meaning interpretation you are chasing is the problem. In hermeneutics, a word can only mean one thing in a single context. You want the names "Joseph" and "Esau" to refer to BOTH individuals and family... while maintaining that God's elective purposes only pertains to the family.

You seem to have an issue referencing ANY Scripture...

Then who has the "knee jerk" responses?

• 
  [ul]I asked if Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12. No answer.[/ul]
  [ul]I referred to Romans 7.15 about the definition of "hate" and Paul's use of the term. That was not answered.[/ul]
  [ul]I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.[/ul]

You seem to have an issue with Scripture.

God has always chosen individuals for many reasons...  But not to facilitate Reformed Theology.  He chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the very passage we are discussing - but not for Justification.  You simply lack understanding of the seed of Abraham as well as the seed of promise.

Then how does Pharaoh fit into this? Was he ordained for something not related to salvation issues?

That's because in the context of Romans 9, he is.  Have you not read Gen 25:23 that I referenced earlier??

Yes. I read it. That doesn't mean that every time Joseph and Esau are mentioned in the Bible, the author intends to say the "whole nation." Individual Israelites were ordained to Salvation. Same with the Gentiles. "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." Ac 13:48. <--- note well... another reference to Scripture.

Salvation is for individuals.

 

[bruinboy]

Kinda funny, people who (I assume), are KJVO, are saying that, what the magic version of the Bible says, it doesn't really mean. 

 

[FSSL]

You seem to have an issue referencing ANY Scripture...

?I asked if Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12. No answer.

?I referred to Romans 7.15 about the definition of "hate" and Paul's use of the term. That was not answered.

?I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.

Unanswered. Well, that discussion quickly came to an end.

 

[cpizzle]

You seem to have an issue referencing ANY Scripture...

?I asked if Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12. No answer.

?I referred to Romans 7.15 about the definition of "hate" and Paul's use of the term. That was not answered.

?I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.

Unanswered. Well, that discussion quickly came to an end.

Romans 9 was written to the church to explain why God is just in rejecting the Jews for their lack of faith in Jesus Christ.

Hate can be used both ways.  In Romans 9 in regards to Esau, it shows that God chose Jacob and not Esau to carry on the promises of Abraham when neither had done anything good or bad.  God did not "hate" Esau in the sense that he despised him at birth.

I believe Jacob and Esau ARE referring to the individuals. 

All of those points seem somewhat minor and don't add much to the overall argument.

If God chooses who gets saved and stays saved unconditionally, then why did he reject Israel after initially choosing them?

 

[FSSL]

Romans 9 was written to the church to explain why God is just in rejecting the Jews for their lack of faith in Jesus Christ.

Hate can be used both ways.

In the same passage? That would violate the normal interpretation of Scripture. It is either or. Since it is used in contrast to "love," it wouldn't make sense to say God "preferred Jacob more."

In verse 9.22, he calls Esau (among others) "objects of wrath prepared for destruction." To say he meant "despised less," really undercuts this idea.

God did not "hate" Esau in the sense that he despised him at birth.

Then are you willing to say that God did not "love" Jacob in the sense that he didnt despise him at birth?

I believe Jacob and Esau ARE referring to the individuals. All of those points seem somewhat minor and don't add much to the overall argument.

Hammond Cheese is attempting to avoid the idea that God chose individuals. He believes God only chose the nations.

If God chooses who gets saved and stays saved unconditionally, then why did he reject Israel after initially choosing them?

Not every Israelite was saved. Romans 10.16. It seems as if you are conflating God's purposes for the NATION of Israel with God's purposes for INDIVIDUALS.

God promises to keep individuals secure because He chose them. John 6.39

 

[Bob H]

I will say this, Rom 9 is the "Valley of Megiddo" for the  Cal/Arm debate. In yrs past on the forums the blood letting got quite high.  ....with that said:


Rom 9--- God's past dealings with Isreal
Rom  10--God's present dealings with Isreal
Rom 11--God's promised dealings with Isreal

 

[FSSL]

Rom 9--- God's past dealings with Isreal
Rom  10--God's present dealings with Isreal
Rom 11--God's promised dealings with Isreal

So, does Romans 10 apply to salvation of nonIsraelite?

 

[HammondCheese]

?I asked if Romans 9 isn?t written for ?the Church,? then neither was Romans 3, 10 and 12. No answer.

You'll need to be more specific...  Both on which specific passages/verses and clarify what you mean by "FOR the Church".  Do you mean 'addressee' or application or what?

?I referred to Romans 7.15 about the definition of "hate" and Paul's use of the term. That was not answered.

For one, Romans 7:15 refers to Paul's hatred of the law of sin vs. The Law of God.  Rom 9:13 refers to God's hatred towards the Edomites as referenced clearly in verse 12.  Apples and oranges.

Also, the Greek word used in Rom 9:13 for "hated", 'miseo', which means "to love less", is the same word used in Luke 14:26 - " If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."  It means to love them less than Jesus.  Common Sense 101.

?I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.

Do you have your Bible open?  Or just a gospel tract?  Sorry...  #fundysarcasm

If you understood the transition from the first half of Romans 9 to the second half of Chapter 9 through Chapter 10 and the passage in question, you would see how Paul is going from speaking to the Roman Gentiles  about (a) Israel and his burden for them, to (b) 'the righteousness of the law' (Israel) vs. 'righteousness of faith' (Gentiles), to (c) the end of 'the law for righteousness' through Christ by faith and believing on Him - which is available to ALL who call upon Him, both Jew and Greek.

So, yes...  Romans 10:9-13 refers to individuals.  You are getting too hung up on context by association instead of context by context.  Meaning, you place more emphasis on using random Scripture to prove your point simply because they are recorded in the same "book of the Bible" alone vs. Actual Scripture that tie to together very clearly like Romans 9:12-13 and Genesis 25:23.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

Rom 9--- God's past dealings with Isreal
Rom  10--God's present dealings with Isreal
Rom 11--God's promised dealings with Isreal

So, does Romans 10 apply to salvation of nonIsraelite?

According to Romans 10:12, it does.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

So... your claim that I do not reference Scripture was false... Thank you for finally reading what I wrote.

You'll need to be more specific...  Both on which specific passages/verses and clarify what you mean by "FOR the Church".  Do you mean 'addressee' or application or what?

Both.

Also, the Greek word used in Rom 9:13 for "hated", 'miseo', which means "to love less", is the same word used in Luke 14:26 - " If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."  It means to love them less than Jesus.  Common Sense 101.

Again, you throw us another hermeneutical fallacy. You cannot properly define a word by bringing it in from another author with a different point, while ignoring Paul?s own use of the word.

In other words, you want to avoid the clear language of scripture, so you foist different semantics on it.

Miseo in its most common and natural sense means to hate/detest.

Do you have your Bible open?  Or just a gospel tract?  Sorry...  #fundysarcasm

I have multiple translations including the original language Bibles... they are all the same.

If you actually read how Paul defines hate in chapter 9, it involves the the damnation of the hated.

So, yes...  Romans 10:9-13 refers to individuals.  You are getting too hung up on context by association instead of context by context.  Meaning, you place more emphasis on using random Scripture to prove your point simply because they are recorded in the same "book of the Bible" alone vs. Actual Scripture that tie to together very clearly like Romans 9:12-13 and Genesis 25:23.

You are inconsistent.

 

[HammondCheese]

Sorry, but this is going nowhere with you.  You are so hung up on the definition of "hate" that it's getting old.

I have given fairly detailed exposition of Romans 9 (and now part of 10 to accommodate you), and you continue to ignore everything I have laid out.  Every response you give is cutting and pasting a fraction of my responses simply to debate the definition of "hate" and how you disagree with my hermeneutics regarding that one word.

You'll need to be more specific...  Both on which specific passages/verses and clarify what you mean by "FOR the Church".  Do you mean 'addressee' or application or what?

YOU:  Both.

You didn't provide any specific passages or verses within the three full chapters you asked about.  ??

In other words, you want to avoid the clear language of scripture, so you foist different semantics on it.

Like how you keep avoiding Genesis 25:23?  And how you avoid every single passage I discuss in Romans 9 and 10 with the only exception being your favorite word in 9:13 - "hate"?

YOU:  I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.

ME:  Do you have your Bible open?  Or just a gospel tract?  Sorry...  #fundysarcasm

YOU:  I have multiple translations including the original language Bibles... they are all the same.

Huh?  I was being sarcastic because you finally referenced Scripture other than ONE WORD in Romans 9:13, and it just so happens to be from the good 'ole "Roman's Road" from memory off the back of a gospel tract.  Sorry, but that's just shallow and lazy on your part.

YOU:  I pointed out your inconsistency that you should also believe that Romans 10:9-13 applies to nations and not individual people.

ME:  If you understood the transition from the first half of Romans 9 to the second half of Chapter 9 through Chapter 10 and the passage in question, you would see how Paul is going from speaking to the Roman Gentiles about (a) Israel and his burden for them, to (b) 'the righteousness of the law' (Israel) vs. 'the righteousness of faith' (Gentiles), to (c) the end of 'the law for righteousness' through Christ by faith and believing on Him - which is available to ALL who call upon Him, both Jew and Greek.

So, yes...  Romans 10:9-13 refers to individuals.  You are getting too hung up on context by association instead of context by context.  Meaning, you place more emphasis on using random Scripture to prove your point simply because they are recorded in the same "book of the Bible" alone vs. Actual Scriptures that tie to together very clearly like Romans 9:12-13 and Genesis 25:23.

YOU:  You are inconsistent.

Could you please be more vague? 



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

So, I confront you with Scripture and you now pile on with more fallacies

If you define hate in a way that contradicts Paul?s usage of it and the clear meaning of the text, you are not being guided by Scripture. Your personal theology is not allowing for a normal interpretation.

Once you diminish the meaning of ?hate,? you also diminish the meaning of ?love.?

 

[prophet]

Esau was despised, rejected of God, damned.

Heb 12:16 ? Heb 12:17 (KJV)
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

So, I confront you with Scripture and you now pile on with more fallacies

WHAT SCRIPTURE??  I'm still waiting!

If you define hate in a way that contradicts Paul?s usage of it and the clear meaning of the text, you are not being guided by Scripture. Your personal theology is not allowing for a normal interpretation.

Once you diminish the meaning of ?hate,? you also diminish the meaning of ?love.?

Good grief!  You are STILL hung up on the word "HATE"!!!

Fine!  Let's suppose I agree that God HATED Easu in the way you define it - 'detesting' with 0% love...  Then what??  How about the 2,327 other passages I've discussed??  And don't bother responding with a generalized opinion of my overall exposition...  Take one verse at a time for crying out loud...  And include all that I said about it IN your response.

Otherwise, be gone with your inept, meaningless replies...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

Esau was despised, rejected of God, damned.

Heb 12:16 ? Heb 12:17 (KJV)
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Not as far as this passage is concerned.  You are committing blatant eisegesis.  There is zero mention here about Esau being despised OR damned.

And the 'rejection' here simply refers to Esau's inability to reverse the losing of his inheritance of the seed of blessing by giving up his birthright to Jacob.  Also, this is only an example given of a profane person.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

I have given fairly detailed exposition of Romans 9

Entire books have been written on this chapter alone. MoonCheese writes fewer than 400 words--less than a page, not even enough to qualify as a middle-school term paper--and declares it "fairly detailed."

Maybe it is, if we use the middle-school report-card definition of "fair": not particularly good. More likely, MoonCheese is just having trouble understanding words again.

On the old FFF, there used to be a post of mine going through Romans 9 verse by verse. Unfortunately, that site is now completely defunct, and I can't find it on any other site I may have posted it to, either. If there's interest, I'm not against rewriting it, although it wouldn't be quick.

 

[FSSL]

Good grief!  You are STILL hung up on the word "HATE"!!!

I?m not the one hung up on it. I am not dancing around the clear, univocal meaning of the word.

Why can?t God hate since he says that those He hates are objects of wrath set for destruction?

Yes... there is another passage of Scripture I just quoted in this post.

 

[prophet]

Esau was despised, rejected of God, damned.

Heb 12:16 ? Heb 12:17 (KJV)
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Not as far as this passage is concerned.  You are committing blatant eisegesis.  There is zero mention here about Esau being despised OR damned.

And the 'rejection' here simply refers to Esau's inability to reverse the losing of his inheritance of the seed of blessing by giving up his birthright to Jacob.  Also, this is only an example given of a profane person.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Why accuse me of "blantant eisegesis" , when I used an alternative passage to give the bigger picture?

Burning someone forever in the Lake of Fire is hatred.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

I have given fairly detailed exposition of Romans 9

Entire books have been written on this chapter alone. MoonCheese writes fewer than 400 words--less than a page, not even enough to qualify as a middle-school term paper--and declares it "fairly detailed."

Maybe it is, if we use the middle-school report-card definition of "fair": not particularly good. More likely, MoonCheese is just having trouble understanding words again.

On the old FFF, there used to be a post of mine going through Romans 9 verse by verse. Unfortunately, that site is now completely defunct, and I can't find it on any other site I may have posted it to, either. If there's interest, I'm not against rewriting it, although it wouldn't be quick.

I was speaking in relative terms...  Because for this forum, it's certainly extensive.

And no, I'm not interested in what you have to say about Romans 9 or any other passage in Scripture...  And I'm pretty certain I'm not alone.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk