Ya Malachi definitely shows how God is angry with the nation of edom.

Wrong. Malachi 1 is about Edom. St Paul is quoting Malachi 1 in Romans 11, and we can trust that he is exegeting scripture correctly. So Romans 11 isn't talking about individuals. What happened to Edom that Malachi is referencing has nothing to do with Esau losing his birthright to Jacob. It is because they betrayed their brethren in Israel and even joined in the looting when Judah fell. God didn't hate Esau the man. It's not correct to connect those things.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

But why does God hate essu? Because he traded the things of God for the things of flesh. Which we ALL do. And hence need a savior.

---

So God hates all of us?

Agreed. Malachi is specifically about the nation.

However Paul in Romans 9 is very clearly talking about Gods sovereignty to bring about the plan of salvation. Which included Esau the PERSON to sell his birthright to Jacob for food. Which is a picture of what every nonbeliever does. This doesn't mean God predestined Esau to hell or Esaus offspring to hell. In fact we see Jacob and Esau being reconciled. So that very specific verse about Jacob I loved and Esau I hated is about the nation. But within the chapter it's about also Esau the person. Which again ultimately is about Gods sovereignty to bring salvation through the world

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Agreed. Malachi is specifically about the nation.

However Paul in Romans 9 is very clearly talking about Gods sovereignty to bring about the plan of salvation. Which included Esau the PERSON to sell his birthright to Jacob for food. Which is a picture of what every nonbeliever does. This doesn't mean God predestined Esau to hell or Esaus offspring to hell. In fact we see Jacob and Esau being reconciled. So that very specific verse about Jacob I loved and Esau I hated is about the nation. But within the chapter it's about also Esau the person. Which again ultimately is about Gods sovereignty to bring salvation through the world

---

sorry was going from memory. Romans 9:13 is quoting Malachi 1. So no, he is NOT talking about people, because that would mean he was misunderstanding Malachi 1. If Malachi 1 is about Edom, so is St Paul's quote in Romans 9.

God loves us which is why He sent his Son. But just like Esau the world has rejected the things of God for the things of flesh. Like the scriptures say. Friend of the world is enmity with God.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

God loves us which is why He sent his Son. But just like Esau the world has rejected the things of God for the things of flesh. Like the scriptures say. Friend of the world is enmity with God.

---

You said God hated Esau for these reasons. It can't be both.

The only place that phrase is used - Esau have I hated - is Malachi 1, which we agree is about Edom. So what gives?

The quote yes. But Paul can be talking about multiple things through the course of a chapter. You are taking ONE verse and limiting an entire chapters subject. Paul also talks about Rebekah and her children

"And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls"
Romans 9:10-11 ESV

Do you just ignore these verses? Paul is clearly talking about specific people. Even says ONE MAN. Yes he quotes Malachi which is about the nation of edom but he's also talking about the people. Why? Because through BOTH the individual people and the nations Gods is sovereign to bring His plan of salvation

Good point. Scratch that. God hates a group of people. What do you think is the reason?

I don't agree. St Paul isn't proof texted scripture and taking scripture we both agree is clearly about nations to apply it to people. So we have to understand how these quotes about the nations apply to people. And the answer isn't that God hates Esau, it's that the way the promises come about aren't always obvious - for example some of the people who are of Abraham not inheriting. Or a birthright going through a younger brother. Or, as is the focus of the whole epistle, how salvation of the Jewish messiah comes for all nations.

The point of contention is whether God hates Esau or not, not how God works through people. Anyone who says God hates Esau and is talking about a person is flat misinterpreting scripture. Malachi doesn't say that, St Paul doesn't teach that. It preaches really well, as you show. But it's not right, and we should reject it along with the myriad of bad conclusions it leads to.

Well the scripture literally says ONE MAN right before this. So it's pretty clear He's talking about a specific person. Is he referring to the Nation of Rebekah as well?

You are being very disingenuous. We are on the same side of the ultimate point. Which is this chapter is not about salvation but about His sovereignty.


So let's say you are right. That this entire chapter is purely about a nation. Then instead of God hating a person you are saying God is hating a nation. Which those who believe this is a salvation issue will just say ok see God Hates an entire nation and therefore my belief to hate XYZ is justified.

My point is it doesn't matter if it's a nation a person or both to think any of this is about predestined salvation or condemnation is wrong. It's about Gods sovereignty.

dermdoc said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ya it's pretty crazy. I've seen it in a new form where the argument goes the Holy Spirit is who enables you to accept Jesus. So you can't accept Jesus until the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to you and gives you the faith to believe in Jesus. Which if that's how that process works what's the point of evangelism?

I have a very dear friend and believer who day and night is tormented by the "fact" the Holy Spirit may not reveal who Jesus is to one of his daughters and he feels he plays no role in them coming to faith and it's only a matter of IF the HS reveals the truth.

It's very hard to watch him go through being a father like that.

---

This post indicates what could have happened. To me, there is a lot of Scripture that talks about how important being raised and exposed to Godly parents is. Both in the OT and NT. If they have no effect, as one would have to surmise from the doctrine of double predestination, then what difference does it make?

---

Dermdoc,

I think it is a straw man to say they have no effect. Remember Roma's 8:28? All things work together for good for those who love God, and are called according to his purpose. God is weaving a tapestry and all we can see at times from this side is the ugly side of the tapestry. To say that having Godly parents has no effect ignores what may be God's purposes we cannot comprehend.

It would seem to me that the pressure and guilt would weigh heavier on an Arminian parent. If his kids don't get saved, maybe it's his fault. The Calvinist parent knows he should be faithful but that ultimately it is God that saves and not a human decision.

Scripture is clear that God elects people to salvation. The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is over what that election is based on.

With respect to a question above about what the point of evangelism is to a Calvinist, I believe there are two main reasons. One is obedience to the command of God in the great commission. Another is being given the opportunity to participate in bringing people into the kingdom, which is seen as a great honor. History shows that many of the great missionaries in history were Calvinists.

God does not have to choose anyone. The fact that He chooses any undeserving sinners is a demonstration of his mercy. We all deserve to pay for our sins in hell. God just chooses to save some. I do not know why he does not save all.

I'm fairly new here, but I will say this seems to be a place where folks engage in spirited and respectful conversation. I don't expect we will convince each other of anything, but I do appreciate your thoughts, brother. All the best to you.

The whole book is St Paul speaking to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles. That's what the focus is. It's not a theological treatise on salvation, it's a letter to real people with real problems. Several times St Paul answers rhetorical opponents questions as a part of this narrative, to teach. This chapter in particular is answering the posed question of did God's promise fail? And one example of how disinherited people are *not* evidence of God's promises and plans failing is Jacob and Esau. And also how God's promises don't follow the obvious path - in particular here the genetic or bloodline path!! - and isn't subject to being fouled up by people. The immediate conclusion being ok Gentiles don't think that because of this God hates Israel or that you're some kind of plan B and they're out. You were always in the plan, but the plan is a mystery that is revealed.

Jacob and Esau are an example, and the proof that God's plan worked is that it was foretold that Esau's descendants would be subjected to Jacob's, and Malachi 1 is sort of the ultimate proof. Not because of Esau, but because the plan worked out and ultimately was true, because of what people did. In this case everyone involved worked for the good of God's plan, even if they did bad things or intended for evil. And ultimately the plan came to fruition in Christ in an amazing and wonderful way, as the conclusion in Romans 11 days, and All Israel will be saved.

All this other stuff about well Esau messed up (he did) and lost his birthright (he did) so it went through Jacob (it did) and some of his offspring the Edomites really screwed up (they did) doesn't point to therefore God hates Esau and let's make a bunch of theological conclusions about it and free will and salvation. It just doesn't.

Because if that's true about Esau it's also true about everyone. It's bad theology and it badly misrepresents the point of the text.

Disagree with your theology but agree with the spirit.

We are brothers in Christ. And Ags.

May I ask why there is a great commission if double predestination is correct?

dermdoc said:

---

May I ask why there is a great commission if double predestination is correct?

---

I have not studied this in detail. That being said, off the top of my head I'd say that God uses people to effect his purposes. I suppose He could just zap people into the kingdom, but that is not how He chose to do it. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the Word.

Why do you need hearing(which of course I believe you do)if everything is double predestination?

And I firmly believe most Calvinists have not studied this in detail. Or the theology of double predestination. They are too nice.

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

Zobel said:

---

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

---

Amen.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

---

Amen.

---

I don't claim to have all of this figured out. There are tensions in scripture that people much smarter than anyone here have struggled to resolve. It's not something we should break fellowship over.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

---

Amen.

---

I don't claim to have all of this figured out. There are tensions in scripture that people much smarter than anyone here have struggled to resolve. It's not something we should break fellowship over.

---

Love you brother.

I hate bad theology.

Might want to research what double predestination is and what it actually means as to God's character.

Did you read my post above about what a loving father is?

How long was Christianity around before the KJV?

And how many years since the KJV?

Zobel said:

---

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

---

I'm not a proponent of double predestination, but do you believe God foreknew all that would not come to salvation and still created them knowing they'd be eternally damned?

Satoshi Nakamoto said:

---

Zobel said:

---

God doesn't choose to save some. He will have mercy upon who He has mercy, and He chose to have mercy upon everyone. It is His will that all men be saved. The whole point of the scripture is to show how He is working to save all mankind, through a faithful remnant, starting with one man and family and ultimately expanding to everyone. That all are not saved doesn't mean God chose some for damnation. His will is that all be saved. Men have the freedom to come to salvation and this is what God longs for.

---

I'm not a proponent of double predestination, but do you believe God foreknew all that would not come to salvation and still created them knowing they'd be eternally damned?

---

That raises an interesting question: If one believes it violates God's character to predestine some to hell by not electing them, wouldn't it also violate his character to create people who would not choose him? Wouldn't it be more loving to be more effective at persuading them to choose him by sending better evangelists, putting them in better families, etc. . .?

I think people have truly free will in that nothing hinders them from becoming what they are meant to be. All humans have one purpose - to become united to God. Who will be damned? Hopefully very few. As many great saints said - we must pray for the salvation of all.

PA24 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm curious did God hate Reuben? He was also the first born son, but also not the firstborn or heir of the promises. That would be the fourth son, Judah. Reuben's descendants along with all of the northern kingdom were destroyed, lost, or scattered among the nations. How about the older sons of Jesse, David's older brothers?

---

Per scripture, Reuben was cursed when he slept Jacob's concubine.

Don't even know why I bother as I went thru that with my earlier post that you arrogantly dismissed.

I am sure you are a Christian, just misguided much like the others that do not follow the KJV.

Have a blessed week and pray constantly for forgiveness as you forgive.

---

Im not sure I arrogantly dismissed anything.

I note here you didn't answer a single question.

I don't follow the King James Version because I don't worship a book. I follow Christ Jesus, and learn from the scriptures which teach about Him. The scriptures the apostles used were not the King James Version.

KJV-onlyism is idolatry. It's a cult.

Zobel said:

---

I think people have truly free will in that nothing hinders them from becoming what they are meant to be. All humans have one purpose - to become united to God. Who will be damned? Hopefully very few. As many great saints said - we must pray for the salvation of all.

---

Amen. In my opinion, if there is no free will, then there is no true love. True love means that one is given the opportunity to either love or reject.

I think one of the differences in how this is viewed comes from our view on the Incarnation and atonement. I believe it is much broader and more powerful than just "saving us from hell". If that is the case, then what are we here for? We are "saved"; what now?

I believe Jesus came to transform and redeem the whole world and that it is God's plan to ultimately redeem the world as it was meant to be. And to show us how to live life abundantly.

A new Earth, a new Jerusalem, where the Lord dwells with us. It is even better than we can imagine.

So whats so special about the king james version?

What did they get right that every other translation didn't? Was it a perfect balance of word for word versus phrase by phrase translation?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I use the ESV for reading, but I know there are shortcomings of the english language. Modern technology has led to easier knowledge sharing of the roots and contexts of the original languages. Relying on a contextless reading of the bible only gets you so far anyway. I've never expected a translation to come with the talmud-like writings of interpretation in the margins. Even most study bibles are like sparknotes who go, 'ehh this is way deeper than the 4 sentences of interpretation we've got room to write about down here.'