Created for hell

[Theo1689]

ok. if you are not claiming the passage teaches God created people to be hated and destined for hell, then it is not a refutation of what I said. So it is a sidetrack.

First, I'd like to point out that some posters here are unwilling to offer a theology to believe, and to support it from Scripture. All they want to do is hide behind a corner and throw pot shots at what anyone else says. So let's suppose these people "proved" Calvinism false. What then? They have no alternative theology to offer. They simply want their theology to win by "default". They believe others have to "prove" their theology from Scripture, but they don't have to prove THEIR theology from Scripture.

But, since this poster clearly doesn't understand the meaning of Rom. 9 (I've asked him many times to share his understanding, and he is unable to do so), I guess I'll have to explain it him.


Rom. 9:9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Okay, here we see Paul talking about Rebekah and the twins, and pointing out that God's "election" occurred before the twins were born, or before they had done anything, "good or bad".

So God's election is NOT based on "foreseen actions", or "foreseen decisions", since Paul explicitly DENIES that it was based on anything the twins did, and made the argument that their election was before they were born.

And then he says that God had chosen, before the twins were born, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".

Please note that it doesn't say that God hated "things" Esau did, or "decisions" Esau made. It says He hated ESAU himself. And if you want to deny that God hated Esau, then you would have to likewise deny that God loved Jacob, since they are parallel passages.

Continuing...

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

What this is basically saying is, "I give mercy to whoever I want, and I will have compassion on whoever I want." Remember, we just saw that God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were ever born, not based on ANYTHING they had done. Paul is simply expanding on this.

So God's mercy does not depend on what we do ("human will or exertion"),
but solely on God.

Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

He then brings up the example of Pharaoh, where God's purpose in creating Pharaoh was to have His (God's) name proclaimed throughout the Earth. God arranged the whole thing, from having Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt (Gen. 50:20), to the famine, to bringing Joseph's family back to Egypt to save them from the famine, to hardening Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Jews go, to give God opportunity to perform all his plague miracles, and then parting the Red Sea to allow the Jews to finally escape.

All to proclaim the glory of God!

And Paul reiterates the idea of God "having mercy on whomever he wants", just as God "hardens whomever He wills". This reminds us of God hardening Pharaoh's heart every time Moses asked to let the people go, each refusal resulting in the opportunity to perform yet another plague miracle.

God has mercy on whom He wills ("Jacob I loved"),
and God hardens whomever He wants ("Esau I hated").
All before we were ever born (ie. election, cf. Eph. 1:4ff).

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

And Paul expects his readers to come up with this objection, he's probably heard it many times before. "God can do whatever He wants". "But that's not FAIR!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhh!!!"

But God is God.
He can do whatever He wants, as Creator of the universe.
Just like a sculptor can make a sculpture any way HE wants.

God is the "molder".
We are the "molded".
God is the "potter".
We are the "clay".

And as the Potter, He can make us any way He wants. He can "have compassion" for us, or He can "harden" us.

And it is important to note that while God is making "vessels of honour" and "vessels of dishonour", he makes each from the SAME LUMP of clay. So the difference in the vessels ("honour" vs. "dishonour") is not based on the clay, but is based on the Potter's intention.

Rom. 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

It would be sufficient for God (through Paul) to simply teach us that He does this. But He does more, he explains to us WHY He has hardened some and shown compassion to others.

Noticed that Not only has God prepared "vessels of wrath" (= "vessels of dishonour"), but they were prepared "FOR DESTRUCTION" (ie. "destined for hell"). And the reason He created them "for destruction" was to:
- "show his wrath";
- "make known his power";
- demonstrated "much patience" (in not smiting the vessels of dishonour upon their first sin, but allowing them to live full lives before meeting their destiny);
- "make known the riches of his glory" for us, the "vessels of mercy".

And then Paul makes the point (which he started in vv. 3-6) that His people, spiritual Israel, is not the same as physical Israel. His people are those drawn out of both "Jew" and "Gentile".

And then Paul quotes Scripture (Hosea) to support his point:

Rom. 9:25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
Rom. 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”


So there you go...
God hating some.
And God destining, creating them for the purpose of hell.

 

[squirrelyguy]

First, I'd like to point out that some posters here are unwilling to offer a theology to believe, and to support it from Scripture. All they want to do is hide behind a corner and throw pot shots at what anyone else says. So let's suppose these people "proved" Calvinism false. What then? They have no alternative theology to offer. They simply want their theology to win by "default". They believe others have to "prove" their theology from Scripture, but they don't have to prove THEIR theology from Scripture.

I could copy and paste the entire post here, but to avoid the charge that I'm spamming the board, I'll just link my thread from earlier today: https://forums.carm.org/threads/romans-9-11-and-eschatology.5229/

Please note that it doesn't say that God hated "things" Esau did, or "decisions" Esau made. It says He hated ESAU himself. And if you want to deny that God hated Esau, then you would have to likewise deny that God loved Jacob, since they are parallel passages.

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." - Luke 14:26

Whatever we make of Jesus' command to "hate" our relatives, I am quite certain you don't believe He wants us to desire their eternal damnation. Why should we believe this with regards to Esau? Why can't the word "hate" in Romans 9 mean that God disfavored Esau in relation to his brother?

Noticed that Not only has God prepared "vessels of wrath" (= "vessels of dishonour"), but they were prepared "FOR DESTRUCTION" (ie. "destined for hell"). And the reason He created them "for destruction" was to:
- "show his wrath";
- "make known his power";
- demonstrated "much patience" (in not smiting the vessels of dishonour upon their first sin, but allowing them to live full lives before meeting their destiny);
- "make known the riches of his glory" for us, the "vessels of mercy".

If that's your interpretation, then you've got a problem when you read past the end of chapter 9 and get to 11:30-32. "For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

Since you believe that Esau and Pharoah's eternal damnation was guaranteed before they were born, when do you think their time will come to "obtain mercy" through the "mercy shown to you?"

And then Paul makes the point (which he started in vv. 3-6) that His people, spiritual Israel, is not the same as physical Israel. His people are those drawn out of both "Jew" and "Gentile".

Yes indeed; but in chapter 11 he stops talking about spiritual Israel and reverts back to physical Israel, and says "All Israel will be saved." Immediately before this he says "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in", so it's a bit problematic to maintain that the following words "All Israel shall be saved" are about only those who comprise spiritual Israel (since he's differentiating between Israel and Gentiles). Then doubling down, he says in v. 29 "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." This makes it all the more certain that he is no longer talking merely about spiritual Israel receiving mercy, but the very Jews in chapter 9 who had been given over to disobedience!

The problem with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is that you have to stop reading at the end of chapter 9 to make it plausible! But Paul doesn't stop talking about election until the end of chapter 11!

 

[Sethproton]

First, I'd like to point out that some posters here are unwilling to offer a theology to believe, and to support it from Scripture. All they want to do is hide behind a corner and throw pot shots at what anyone else says. So let's suppose these people "proved" Calvinism false. What then? They have no alternative theology to offer. They simply want their theology to win by "default". They believe others have to "prove" their theology from Scripture, but they don't have to prove THEIR theology from Scripture.

But, since this poster clearly doesn't understand the meaning of Rom. 9 (I've asked him many times to share his understanding, and he is unable to do so), I guess I'll have to explain it him.


Rom. 9:9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Okay, here we see Paul talking about Rebekah and the twins, and pointing out that God's "election" occurred before the twins were born, or before they had done anything, "good or bad".

So God's election is NOT based on "foreseen actions", or "foreseen decisions", since Paul explicitly DENIES that it was based on anything the twins did, and made the argument that their election was before they were born.

And then he says that God had chosen, before the twins were born, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated".

Please note that it doesn't say that God hated "things" Esau did, or "decisions" Esau made. It says He hated ESAU himself. And if you want to deny that God hated Esau, then you would have to likewise deny that God loved Jacob, since they are parallel passages.

Continuing...

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

What this is basically saying is, "I give mercy to whoever I want, and I will have compassion on whoever I want." Remember, we just saw that God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were ever born, not based on ANYTHING they had done. Paul is simply expanding on this.

So God's mercy does not depend on what we do ("human will or exertion"),
but solely on God.

Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

He then brings up the example of Pharaoh, where God's purpose in creating Pharaoh was to have His (God's) name proclaimed throughout the Earth. God arranged the whole thing, from having Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt (Gen. 50:20), to the famine, to bringing Joseph's family back to Egypt to save them from the famine, to hardening Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't let the Jews go, to give God opportunity to perform all his plague miracles, and then parting the Red Sea to allow the Jews to finally escape.

All to proclaim the glory of God!

And Paul reiterates the idea of God "having mercy on whomever he wants", just as God "hardens whomever He wills". This reminds us of God hardening Pharaoh's heart every time Moses asked to let the people go, each refusal resulting in the opportunity to perform yet another plague miracle.

God has mercy on whom He wills ("Jacob I loved"),
and God hardens whomever He wants ("Esau I hated").
All before we were ever born (ie. election, cf. Eph. 1:4ff).

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

And Paul expects his readers to come up with this objection, he's probably heard it many times before. "God can do whatever He wants". "But that's not FAIR!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhh!!!"

But God is God.
He can do whatever He wants, as Creator of the universe.
Just like a sculptor can make a sculpture any way HE wants.

God is the "molder".
We are the "molded".
God is the "potter".
We are the "clay".

And as the Potter, He can make us any way He wants. He can "have compassion" for us, or He can "harden" us.

And it is important to note that while God is making "vessels of honour" and "vessels of dishonour", he makes each from the SAME LUMP of clay. So the difference in the vessels ("honour" vs. "dishonour") is not based on the clay, but is based on the Potter's intention.

Rom. 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

It would be sufficient for God (through Paul) to simply teach us that He does this. But He does more, he explains to us WHY He has hardened some and shown compassion to others.

Noticed that Not only has God prepared "vessels of wrath" (= "vessels of dishonour"), but they were prepared "FOR DESTRUCTION" (ie. "destined for hell"). And the reason He created them "for destruction" was to:
- "show his wrath";
- "make known his power";
- demonstrated "much patience" (in not smiting the vessels of dishonour upon their first sin, but allowing them to live full lives before meeting their destiny);
- "make known the riches of his glory" for us, the "vessels of mercy".

And then Paul makes the point (which he started in vv. 3-6) that His people, spiritual Israel, is not the same as physical Israel. His people are those drawn out of both "Jew" and "Gentile".

And then Paul quotes Scripture (Hosea) to support his point:

Rom. 9:25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
Rom. 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”


So there you go...
God hating some.
And God destining, creating them for the purpose of hell.

Thanks for giving your take on the passage, but let me point out, there are no words in this passage saying that God created any person to be hated and end up in Hell. The ideas in the passage are focused on mercy, God's mercy and His right to have mercy on whoever He chooses.
you quoted the part teaching that God has the right to call us His people when we previously were not. Why do you make the passage be about God's intention to punish people in Hell, and that He created them for that?

 

[Sethproton]

I could copy and paste the entire post here, but to avoid the charge that I'm spamming the board, I'll just link my thread from earlier today: https://forums.carm.org/threads/romans-9-11-and-eschatology.5229/


"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." - Luke 14:26

Whatever we make of Jesus' command to "hate" our relatives, I am quite certain you don't believe He wants us to desire their eternal damnation. Why should we believe this with regards to Esau? Why can't the word "hate" in Romans 9 mean that God disfavored Esau in relation to his brother?


If that's your interpretation, then you've got a problem when you read past the end of chapter 9 and get to 11:30-32. "For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

Since you believe that Esau and Pharoah's eternal damnation was guaranteed before they were born, when do you think their time will come to "obtain mercy" through the "mercy shown to you?"


Yes indeed; but in chapter 11 he stops talking about spiritual Israel and reverts back to physical Israel, and says "All Israel will be saved." Immediately before this he says "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in", so it's a bit problematic to maintain that the following words "All Israel shall be saved" are about only those who comprise spiritual Israel (since he's differentiating between Israel and Gentiles). Then doubling down, he says in v. 29 "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." This makes it all the more certain that he is no longer talking merely about spiritual Israel receiving mercy, but the very Jews in chapter 9 who had been given over to disobedience!

The problem with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is that you have to stop reading at the end of chapter 9 to make it plausible! But Paul doesn't stop talking about election until the end of chapter 11!

I think this is an excellent explanation

 

[Theo1689]

Yeah.... So I asked you before I wrote this, if I responded, would you address the passages, or simply go "nuh-Huh". And you said you'd address the passages.

I knew you wouldn't live up to your word.

Thanks for giving your take on the passage, but let me point out, there are no words in this passage saying that God created any person to be hated and end up in Hell. The ideas in the passage are focused on mercy, God's mercy and His right to have mercy on whoever He chooses.
you quoted the part teaching that God has the right to call us His people when we previously were not. Why do you make the passage be about God's intention to punish people in Hell, and that He created them for that?

Let's see... I quoted (and exegeted) Rom. 9:9-26.

I guess you missed, "but Esau I hated" (v.13);
I guess you missed, "and he hardens whomever he wills" (v.18),
I guess you missed, "to make out ... another for dishonourable use" (v.21),
I guess you missed, "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v.22),



I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read the OP.

 

[Chalcedon]

Thanks for giving your take on the passage, but let me point out, there are no words in this passage saying that God created any person to be hated and end up in Hell. The ideas in the passage are focused on mercy, God's mercy and His right to have mercy on whoever He chooses.
you quoted the part teaching that God has the right to call us His people when we previously were not. Why do you make the passage be about God's intention to punish people in Hell, and that He created them for that?

Evasion read the text and refute him from the text . Asking questions is not refuting him it’s your excuse to not having to deal with the actual text. Once again you have demonstrated your inability to respond with a cogent reply from the text.

What you have been asked to do countless times is what squirrelguy did even though I disagree with his response. He gave an honest exegetical reply to the OP from the text to show what his disagreement is with Theo . Doug does the same thing so take a page from his book and apply that method to your posts.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Theo1689]

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." - Luke 14:26

Whatever we make of Jesus' command to "hate" our relatives, I am quite certain you don't believe He wants us to desire their eternal damnation. Why should we believe this with regards to Esau? Why can't the word "hate" in Romans 9 mean that God disfavored Esau in relation to his brother?

This is very poor hermeneutics.
The two passages aren't even closely related to each other.

The base meaning of "μισεω" is "hate", or "detest". And so there is no reason to doubt that meaning in Rom. 9 and Mal. 1. The reason it doesn't mean that in Luke 14 is because in that verse, "μισεω" is meant in a relative sense. We should love Jesus SOOOOO much, that our feelings for our parents and family seem like "hatred" by comparison. Since Scripture teaches that we are to love even our enemy, and honour our parents, it can't mean "hate" in the literal sense, IN THAT PARTICULAR CONTEXT.

Romans 9 has no similar context to warrant a similar meaning.

I would simply ask you one question.... If God TRULY hated Esau in the literal sense, how do you suppose He could convey that to us in Scripture, with out you weaselling your way out of that understanding? Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore invalid.

If that's your interpretation, then you've got a problem when you read past the end of chapter 9 and get to 11:30-32.

Nope.
I don't have any "problem" at all.

"For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

Since you believe that Esau and Pharoah's eternal damnation was guaranteed before they were born, when do you think their time will come to "obtain mercy" through the "mercy shown to you?"

Rom. 11:32 isn't about "Esau and Pharaoh".
It's about "all" of the ELECT, "all" of the "vessels of honour".
"All" of WHO HE IS WRITING TO (ie. the church).

The problem with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is that you have to stop reading at the end of chapter 9 to make it plausible!

Nope. I don't find that to be true at all.
I simply see you misinterpreting Scripture to try to falsely argue against Calvinism.
Stop being biased against Calvinism, and simply accept the Scripture for what it says.

 

[Theo1689]

I know what I believe and why I believe it. I "proof" my theology from the Scriptures. Not from what Calvin wrote.

Where have you seen Calvinists support their beliefs "from what Calvin wrote"?

I've only seen them do it by quoting SCRIPTURE.

 

[Theo1689]

May I challenge you on your choice of words in the title?

You can write your own posts the way you want.
And I will write my posts the way I want.

 

[Theo1689]

Countless times.

And I'm supposed to believe that?

It is hard for me to believe that you're being very sincere in such statements.

God knows I'm 100% sincere.
So I couldn't care less what you think.

 

[Theo1689]

Do you deny that you see the exquisite nature of God purpose (as you see it) in the damned?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

 

[Theo1689]

By the way. Jacob and Esau are nothing more than an allegory in Romans 9.

Thank you for your opinion.
I'll stick with Scripture.

 

[Theo1689]

So you seriously believe there has never been a Calvinist that used Calvin as a reference for their beliefs?

Calvinists use SCRIPTURE to support their beliefs, not "Calvin".

They may quote Calvin because he worded an explanation (of SCRIPTURE) particularly well, or they may quote Calvin in a discussion of "what Calvin believed", but we ALWAYS quote SCRIPTURE (not Calvin) for our beliefs.

We hold to "sola SCRIPTURA", in case you weren't aware, not "Sola Calvin".

 

[Theo1689]

Just trying to be accurate to what you're saying.

Please let my own posts speak for themselves, and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I believe you know the difference between craftmanship and simply hobbling dirt together.

You can believe whatever you want.
I don't recall asking you what you believe.

 

[Theo1689]

You avoid my other sentence. Are you denying that Esau repented? God didn't hate Esau after he repented.

I'm getting ready to "avoid" ALL your posts.

Do you think you can force people into discussions with you?
Is that the kind of "Christianity" you practice?

 

[Theo1689]

I know you don't like my questions. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments really "lay".

It is unmistakable that Paul uses the story of Jacob's/Esau's "birthright" as an allegory. It is an appeal to a contrast. It was never a literal example of God's choice literally in Jacob and Esau. Esau repented and that destroys that narrative you're painting.

Yeah, this is what you guys do....
You try to force discussions with people who aren't interested, and when they refuse, you make "victory" claims that we're dodging you because we can't answer the questions.

So either you succeed in FORCING people into discussions they're not interested in, or else you proclaim a hollow and worthless "victory".

I'm sorry that you can't deal with the fact that I disagree with your OPINION.
And proclaiming your errant opinion as "unmistakable" doesn't make it any less your opinion, or any less false. If you are so insecure that you can't deal with people disagreeing with you, then that's your problem, not mine.

But I'm not here to be harassed, so welcome to my "ignore" file, and I hope you enjoy your worthless "victory" proclamation.

 

[Chalcedon]

I know you don't like my questions. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments really "lay".

It is unmistakable that Paul uses the story of Jacob's/Esau's "birthright" as an allegory. It is an appeal to a contrast. It was never a literal example of God's choice literally in Jacob and Esau. Esau repented and that destroys that narrative you're painting.

How do you deal with Hebrews 12 below

See that no one is sexually immoral, or is profane like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

and 1 Timothy
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers,

profane—Fornication is nearly akin to gluttony, Esau's sin. He profanely cast away his spiritual privilege for the gratification of his palate. Ge 25:34 graphically portrays him. An example well fitted to strike needful horror into the Hebrews, whosoever of them, like Esau, were only sons of Isaac according to the flesh [Bengel].JFB

hope this helps !!!

 

[Chalcedon]

There is no doubt that Esau was once such a person. However, he later accepted Jacob's birthright and embraced his brother and Jacob's rightful inheritance.

Both authors of Hebrews and 1 Timothy are appealing to the allegorical nature of birthright.

"I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse"...... as witnessed in the very lives of Esau and Jacob

Yet they refer to him as one describing an unbeliever not a believer. In other words his character never changed in every instance he is mentioned in the N.T. Would you agree with that ?

 

[Sethproton]

Yeah.... So I asked you before I wrote this, if I responded, would you address the passages, or simply go "nuh-Huh". And you said you'd address the passages.

I knew you wouldn't live up to your word.



Let's see... I quoted (and exegeted) Rom. 9:9-26.

I guess you missed, "but Esau I hated" (v.13);
I guess you missed, "and he hardens whomever he wills" (v.18),
I guess you missed, "to make out ... another for dishonourable use" (v.21),
I guess you missed, "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v.22),



I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read the OP.

As you know our topic was narrow, Did God create people he hated who He intended to punish in Hell?
You knew that was the topic and you claimed the Romans passage addressed it.
I did not see much in what you said that could be considered on topic, but I did address the parts I thought were.

 

[Chalcedon]

As you know our topic was narrow, Did God create people he hated who He intended to punish in Hell?
You knew that was the topic and you claimed the Romans passage addressed it.
I did not see much in what you said that could be considered on topic, but I did address the parts I thought were.

No you did not address anything in the text from Romans 9, only your ideas.