Why did God hate Esau?

No it doesn't

You ignore what does not fit your theology

You don't get to speak for me.
I don't ignore ANY Scripture.
It's your side that constantly ignores Scripture.
Matt. 23:37
Luke 14:23
John 6:35-45
John 8:34
John 10:26-29
Acts 13:48
Rom. 6:16-22
Rom. 8:7-8
Rom. 8:29-30
Rom. 9:11-24
1 Cor. 2:14
Eph. 1:4-11
1 Pet. 3:8-9
etc.
etc.
etc.


Afraid not as many unanswered verses show otherwise

I'm sorry, but after answering each verse you've posted, 10,000 times, I don't feel the need to repeat myself further.
 
Last edited:
You don't get to speak for me.
I don't ignore ANY Scripture.
It's your side that constantly ignores Scripture.
Matt. 23:37
Luke 14:23
John 6:35-45
John 8:34
John 10:26-29
Acts 13:48
Rom. 6:16-22
Rom. 8:7-8
Rom. 8:29-30
Rom. 9:11-24
1 Cor. 2:14
Eph. 1:4-11
1 Pet. 3:8-9
etc.
etc.
etc.




I'm sorry, but after answering each verse you've posted, 10,000 times, I don't feel the need to repeat myself further.
Sorry but all your verses have been addressed previously and I have not ignored a single one

but there are verses I have posted you have not addressed once
 
If one allows the bible to interpret itself one does not arrive at Calvinism
Calvin started with the Bible, obviously ended with what is called Calvinism, and his bible work was PRAISED by Arminius.
The problem occurs when you take a verse which may appear to support a calvinistic belief and you do not compare it with all of scripture and its context
I have not failed to consider anything that I believed in light of the whole scripture, which is why I can't believe you completely ignore scriptural context. Such as Ephesians 1. You won't consider verse 3 in light of the rest of the chapter. You separate it, and throw it away. When have I not shown other scripture that supports it? How often have you failed to build a context between passages that supports what you believe? What you say about other verses brought in to support destroys scriptural cohesion. I will tell you that Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a Calvinist support verse no matter what they say, however, it also does not deny it. It is completely neutral. Neither side gets support from this verse, however, they also don't lose support from this verse. Dead neutral. I think you have read my understanding of the verse, which apparently falls dead center of the two main beliefs that faith is the gift of God, or faith is an action on the part of man.

And it is true, the problem occurs when you take a verse which does appear to support a calvinistic belief, and you do not compare it to other scripture which also appears to support a calvinistic belief, and find that it provides a logical and rational argument in support of a calvinistic belief. (And it does.) From the prophecy that states that there are none righteous, no not one, there are none that do good, and none that seek after God to God having chosen those He predestined to adoption in Christ before the foundation of the world by the good pleasure of His will, to premillennialism, where He literally fulfills His promises in Israel made to Abraham, etc. If you look at the news today, you will notice that there is a food shortage coming that matches the famine of Revelation, as there is no famine, yet still a food shortage. Prices are skyrocketing. The rich are unaffected. (Matches Revelation.) An article I found today gives an estimate that for the whole world, there is only a 10 week supply of wheat. That is the estimate given to the UN. However, there is food in Ukraine, so it isn't so much that there is an actual famine. Have you ever considered that the premillennialists have it right? (I do not speak of dispensationalists... they are their own little group.)
 
Afraid not

Esau never served Jabob

Not that serve means salvation but

What we have here is Esau (Edom) would serve Jacob (Israel)

Nations

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, 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.


a choice of a nation to be God's servants

Your reading of salvation into this is eisegesis
Wow, way to tell God how it is. Let me stand way over here..(pulls out compass, contractor and paper.) Um.. further... further... okay, I should be safe here. You ignore that God explained this through Paul, and its worded differently, right? And you are the one telling me that I have to consider scriptural context? Technically, Jacob took both Esau's blessing and his birthright (I mean God gave them to Jacob, technically), and therefore, even you should understand, that Esau, by technicality, served Jacob. There is a reason why the verse ends with "And the elder shall serve the younger", and it isn't "the elder nation/people shall serve the younger nation/people". I would have expected that to be rather obvious.
 
Wow, way to tell God how it is. Let me stand way over here..(pulls out compass, contractor and paper.) Um.. further... further... okay, I should be safe here. You ignore that God explained this through Paul, and its worded differently, right? And you are the one telling me that I have to consider scriptural context? Technically, Jacob took both Esau's blessing and his birthright (I mean God gave them to Jacob, technically), and therefore, even you should understand, that Esau, by technicality, served Jacob. There is a reason why the verse ends with "And the elder shall serve the younger", and it isn't "the elder nation/people shall serve the younger nation/people". I would have expected that to be rather obvious.
No that is not an example of Esau serving Jacob

Esau gave away his birthright for some pottage

In any case this is not an example of unconditional election to salvation
 
Calvin started with the Bible, obviously ended with what is called Calvinism, and his bible work was PRAISED by Arminius.

I have not failed to consider anything that I believed in light of the whole scripture, which is why I can't believe you completely ignore scriptural context. Such as Ephesians 1. You won't consider verse 3 in light of the rest of the chapter. You separate it, and throw it away. When have I not shown other scripture that supports it? How often have you failed to build a context between passages that supports what you believe? What you say about other verses brought in to support destroys scriptural cohesion. I will tell you that Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a Calvinist support verse no matter what they say, however, it also does not deny it. It is completely neutral. Neither side gets support from this verse, however, they also don't lose support from this verse. Dead neutral. I think you have read my understanding of the verse, which apparently falls dead center of the two main beliefs that faith is the gift of God, or faith is an action on the part of man.

And it is true, the problem occurs when you take a verse which does appear to support a calvinistic belief, and you do not compare it to other scripture which also appears to support a calvinistic belief, and find that it provides a logical and rational argument in support of a calvinistic belief. (And it does.) From the prophecy that states that there are none righteous, no not one, there are none that do good, and none that seek after God to God having chosen those He predestined to adoption in Christ before the foundation of the world by the good pleasure of His will, to premillennialism, where He literally fulfills His promises in Israel made to Abraham, etc. If you look at the news today, you will notice that there is a food shortage coming that matches the famine of Revelation, as there is no famine, yet still a food shortage. Prices are skyrocketing. The rich are unaffected. (Matches Revelation.) An article I found today gives an estimate that for the whole world, there is only a 10 week supply of wheat. That is the estimate given to the UN. However, there is food in Ukraine, so it isn't so much that there is an actual famine. Have you ever considered that the premillennialists have it right? (I do not speak of dispensationalists... they are their own little group.)
Er Calvin started with Augustine and he was influence by the deterministic Stoics, Gnostics and Manicheans

and brought into the church determinism which wac rejected being taught only by the non christians cults mentioned
 
As usual, you demonstrate your lacking in reading comprehension.
The poster originally mentioned "contractor".
I asked if he meant to say "protractor".
I know what I protactor is, Tom. I'm currently teaching vectors.
Good

So if I post a picture of a protractor that means I do not have reading comprehension

That seems to be a non sequitor
 
Afraid not

Esau never served Jabob
Romans 9 " 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d]" You say that election, as shared explicitly in this verse, is not unconditional, where Paul is clear that it is not by works, that is not by condition, but by Him who calls. This is further shown when God through Paul said "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad." You do understand that God is talking about Himself through Paul, and you are denying Him, right?
Not that serve means salvation but
What we have here is Esau (Edom) would serve Jacob (Israel)
Nations
You forgot Isaac's blessing to Jacob. "
29 [only part of verse] Be lord over your brothers,
and may the sons of your mother bow down to you."

You forgot what Isaac's curse to Esau was "
40 You will live by the sword
and you will serve your brother.
But when you grow restless,
you will throw his yoke
from off your neck.”"

You are the one who keeps saying we have to follow the biblical context. So... follow... the... biblical... context...

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, 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.


a choice of a nation to be God's servants

Your reading of salvation into this is eisegesis
I NEVER said salvation, I said ELECTION, because GOD through PAUL said ELECTION. FOLLOW THE CONTEXT.
 
Romans 9 " 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d]" You say that election, as shared explicitly in this verse, is not unconditional, where Paul is clear that it is not by works, that is not by condition, but by Him who calls. This is further shown when God through Paul said "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad." You do understand that God is talking about Himself through Paul, and you are denying Him, right?
You do understand this is not about unconditional election to salvation but of a choice of a nation which would serve God by bearing the messiah and carrying God's message to the world




I NEVER said salvation, I said ELECTION, because GOD through PAUL said ELECTION. FOLLOW THE CONTEXT.
Fine

So the passage does not teach unconditional election to salvation

and then there is no argument
 
No that is not an example of Esau serving Jacob

Esau gave away his birthright for some pottage

In any case this is not an example of unconditional election to salvation
You didn't read the whole story did you, or are you just ignoring context so you can hypocritically tell me that I don't follow context?
 
You do understand this is not about unconditional election to salvation but of a choice of a nation which would serve God by bearing the messiah and carrying God's message to the world
You understand that you don't understand Paul's context, right? You just invented your own context, didn't you? Where does it say any of this not only in where Paul speaks of Jacob and Isaac, but in this entire passage where the context is that God will have mercy upon whom HE HIMSELF decides to have mercy, and He will harden those whom HE HIMSELF decides to harden. I'm not seeing any of what you said above in this section at all. If you can't get the context of the passage, you aren't going to understand the passage properly. Here is what Paul said in regards to Jacob and Esau, once again, and if I could, I would turn the volume up higher so you hear it this time.

"Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls"

Can you tell me where, in the statement above, can you find:
You do understand this is not about unconditional election to salvation but of a choice of a nation which would serve God by bearing the messiah and carrying God's message to the world
You see, there is a context to this whole passage, into which Paul dropped the verses above. What you are saying that the passage is saying, finds no place within the context of the passage here. You can't remove a few verses from this section, mash them with verses from a whole different part of the book, and say they are saying the same thing. Paul used the prophecy to make a point, and you are denying God His point. The point in terms of election is that that God made His choice between Jacob and Esau, a. before the twins were born and b. before they had done anything good or bad, and He did this that His purpose in election might stand. Remember God is unchanging. So for God, in election, there is one standard, in everything that God chooses, and that is that it is not by works (so nothing we do), but by Him who calls. So, God choosing Jacob over Esau, Israel over Edom, Judah over Israel, Israel over Pharaoh, believers over unbelievers... it does not matter. His purpose in election stands across the board. Not by works, but by Him who calls. This fits in the overarching context of this passage which is God hardens whom He wills to harden, and He has mercy upon whom He wills to have mercy. It is not by works, but by Him who calls. Did Pharaoh in and of himself do something that caused God to decide to crush Him, or had God planned long ago to send Joseph to Egypt, to be followed by Jacob and family, and then chose to rescue Israel from Egypt and glorify himself through the utter humiliation of Pharaoh and Egypt, and the pouring out of wrath upon Pharaoh and Egypt? God Himself said it was so He would be glorified in the surrounding nations. He also said that He didn't choose Israel for some incredible special reason, like Israel being a great nation, or that they themselves, in and of themselves, were so incredible. He said they were small and insignificant, yet He still chose them, out of all the great nations of the world surrounding them. It is in the New Testament that we find out that it was for the sake of the forefathers. (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) Even so, having the whole record of the Old Testament, we see it as well, since we have the whole story from Abraham on up. The Jews at the time had no idea.
Fine

So the passage does not teach unconditional election to salvation

and then there is no argument
The argument is that it states that any election is unconditional. God is unchanging, and Paul says that God's purpose in election stands. You fight against God. No one says you have to be a Calvinist, but you should at least understand this. There are people who believe these things, yet have no desire to be identified with calvinists.
 
Back
Top