ECT Easy grace?

[genuineoriginal]

Loving Jacob and hating Esau long before they were born

God declared "The elder shall serve the younger" while they were in the womb.
God did not declare that He hated Esau until the book of Malachi, after He had brought calamity upon Esau as He declared in Jeremiah.

Man has freedom - yes. But God's Sovereignty is absolute.

I have noticed that people that use the phrase "God's Sovereignty" don't even know what sovereignty is.

 

[nikolai_42]

God declared "The elder shall serve the younger" while they were in the womb.
God did not declare that He hated Esau until the book of Malachi, after He had brought calamity upon Esau as He declared in Jeremiah.

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
Romans 9:10-13

Whether it was said in Genesis or not, the groundwork was there and it was declared that the elder would serve the younger (Gen 25:23). Plus, David declared Jacob as the one whom God loved (Psalm 47:4)

I have noticed that people that use the phrase "God's Sovereignty" don't even know what sovereignty is.

Complete right of rule.

 

[DAN P]

What are you talking about? Your reply has nothing to do with the OT. You make judgemental assumptions which are not true.

No, I am fully aware that others may have different opinions than me. I may not agree with them but I respect their right to hold and express them. Something which you apparently do not.

Pete

Hi and you linked EASY GRACE WITH OSAS and you were asking for a discussion and speaking out of both sides of your mouth , don't you think??

dan p

 

[genuineoriginal]

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Yes, that was said while the children were in the womb.

Genesis 25:23 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.​

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
Romans 9:10-13

That was not written in Genesis before the children were born, it was written centuries later.

Malachi 1:2-3 2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.​

In context, the verses in Romans are talking about a promise that was made to Abraham, through Isaac, through Jacob, and later through Moses, and even later confirmed through the prophets Hosea and Isaiah.

Complete right of rule.

You seem to have a better grasp of the definition than most Reformed/Calvinist do.
Most of them think it means "Complete Puppeteering".

 

[nikolai_42]

Yes, that was said while the children were in the womb.

Genesis 25:23 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.​

That was not written in Genesis before the children were born, it was written centuries later.

Malachi 1:2-3 2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.​

In context, the verses in Romans are talking about a promise that was made to Abraham, through Isaac, through Jacob, and later through Moses, and even later confirmed through the prophets Hosea and Isaiah.



You seem to have a better grasp of the definition than most Reformed/Calvinist do.
Most of them think it means "Complete Puppeteering".

The Reformed folk that I know might consider that a straw canard...on a string...(though I think there are a couple of posters here that might just agree with that definition). All I know is that every time I try to describe what I see, I have difficulty doing so. On the surface of it, man's freedom seems to be a problem for God's utter rule. The most popular explanation is that God allows for and works with free will. In a sense I guess that's true. But the scriptures are often plain in their depiction of God's choice. And I think a true believer will find comfort in that - if for no other reason than He is to be trusted implictly. There is an old (unattributed...as far as I know) hymn/song that has this as the chorus :

Not what I wish to be,
Nor where I wish to go,
For who am I that I should choose my way?
The Lord shall choose for me,
‘Tis better far, I know,
So let him bid me go, or stay

And I suspect that it is an old Pentecostal/revival hymn (but simply don't know). The point is that the life of the believer is one of God's choosing. So the inverse is also true - the unregenerate life is one of man's own choosing. So I see two issues here :

1. To require unregenerate, naturally fallen, dead in sin man to choose God...then to turn around and say that man's choices are wrong and submit them to the God they chose (with the fallen will)!
2. To try and maintain the necessity of an autonomously free will as good and necessary for the same believer who is to submit to God.

So even before we get to verses about predestination, the problem is very sticky indeed. You have to assume man is at least partly alive spiritually (and somewhat good in terms of eternal matters). Only then can you justify any sort of synergistic explanation of salvation. Take away any of this and it all collapses. So since the will that is supposed to be enshrined to validate the salvation of man (as not being a puppet) is deemed not good, what is it we are elevating? Man or God?

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

When, how and why were they born? They received Him, but where is the will of man?

 

[Cross Reference]

Paul said, "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." (Acts 14:22 NKJV)

We are saved by God's grace but be assured he will test our faith. Yes, be assured.

Why would God want to do that?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Reformed folk that I know might consider that a straw canard...on a string...(though I think there are a couple of posters here that might just agree with that definition). All I know is that every time I try to describe what I see, I have difficulty doing so. On the surface of it, man's freedom seems to be a problem for God's utter rule. The most popular explanation is that God allows for and works with free will. In a sense I guess that's true.

I have recently started calling it autonomous will instead of free will to get rid of some of the confusion around the word free.
I do not see any problem with mankind having autonomous will and God's utter rule.
As ruler, God makes decrees and laws, He also acts as judge and grants rewards or punishments as He sees fit.
The subjects of any ruler have the ability to obey the ruler or rebel against the ruler, even if the ruler is God.

The point is that the life of the believer is one of God's choosing. So the inverse is also true - the unregenerate life is one of man's own choosing. So I see two issues here :

1. To require unregenerate, naturally fallen, dead in sin man to choose God...then to turn around and say that man's choices are wrong and submit them to the God they chose (with the fallen will)!
2. To try and maintain the necessity of an autonomously free will as good and necessary for the same believer who is to submit to God.

Jesus said to seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Everyone that is not a citizen of the kingdom of God will be cast into the lake of fire.
Everyone that is a citizen will be given eternal life.

Man has the choice to petition the King and ask the King to grant him citizenship.
The King can accept the petition or reject it.
If the man has been accepted, then the man still has to abide by the laws of the kingdom.
If a citizen is found to be a lawbreaker, there are many punishments that the King can decree, including exile.

So even before we get to verses about predestination, the problem is very sticky indeed. You have to assume man is at least partly alive spiritually (and somewhat good in terms of eternal matters). Only then can you justify any sort of synergistic explanation of salvation. Take away any of this and it all collapses.

I believe the problem with your scenario is that you assume that being alive is something spiritual instead of something physical.
Paul said we live once and then comes judgment.
That coming judgment is based on our choices in this life.

So since the will that is supposed to be enshrined to validate the salvation of man (as not being a puppet) is deemed not good, what is it we are elevating? Man or God?

God of course.
When a man enters a strange kingdom and requests to become a citizen, he is brought before the king, who makes an examination of the man, and makes the choice of whether to accept the man as his subject or to reject the man's petition.
Whichever decision the king makes, it is the king's decision.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

When, how and why were they born? They received Him, but where is the will of man?

The man has no power to become a citizen of the kingdom, he only has the power to petition the king.
The power to make the man a citizen of the kingdom belongs to the king alone.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The man has no power to become a citizen of the kingdom, he only has the power to petition the king.
The power to make the man a citizen of the kingdom belongs to the king alone.

Other saved men and women petition the King.

That is how the Kingdom is advanced in the world.

LA

 

[genuineoriginal]

Other saved men and women petition the King.

That is how the Kingdom is advanced in the world.

LA

Saved men and women also go out and tell non-citizens about the wonderful King and His Kingdom to try to persuade them to petition the King for citizenship.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Saved men and women also go out and tell non-citizens about the wonderful King and His Kingdom to try to persuade them to petition the King for citizenship.

An impossible task unless the Lord be with them in Spirit who alone can open their eyes.

For myself, I was saved due to my ancestors prayers to the Lord because of their loving concern.

In due course at the chosen time I began to believe what I had heard, not because I was wise.

The saints do try hard to persuade men and the Lord sees their hearts prayer for the lost.

Many hypocrites do not have the Spirit of Gods love in them, and only want to extend their own religion of idolatry.

LA

 

[jamie]

Why would God want to do that?

To develop physical strength exercise with weights.

To develop spiritual strength overcome sin.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

"and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised." 2 Corinthians 5:15
Easy grace or cheap grace: wanting God's grace and to live for themselves. (wanting their cake and eat it too).

 

[ZacharyB]

Grace is free but certainly not cheap! I believe a person is saved by Gods grace and this being so that
persons cannot possibly keep themselves saved by any amount of works they do.
The works that God has prepared for His children to walk in we do by the enabling power of The Holy Spirit.

You always seem to me to ignore Scripture.
Thou must somehow deal with verses, such as:
"those who practice righteousness are righteous" (1 John)

Now, if thou wishes, thou might just say:
"it doesn't say that those who do not practice righteousness are not righteous".

This at least wouldest be something worthwhile to say, i.e. instead of just ignoring Scripture.

 

[revpete]

You always seem to me to ignore Scripture.
Thou must somehow deal with verses, such as:
"those who practice righteousness are righteous" (1 John)

Now, if thou wishes, thou might just say:
"it doesn't say that those who do not practice righteousness are not righteous".

This at least wouldest be something worthwhile to say, i.e. instead of just ignoring Scripture.

Thank ye for thine instruction good sir even though it be sore misplaced. I assure thee that I do not ignore scripture neither do I take it out of context, as you have done here.
The verse you quote is addressed to believers ie those who are the temples of The Holy Spirit. Therefore what I said stands. Good day to thee.

Pete

 

[OCTOBER23]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:

it is the gift of God:

 

[chrysostom]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:

it is the gift of God:

I think you are overworking that

 

[ZacharyB]

"those who practice righteousness are righteous" (1 John)

The verse you quote (above) is addressed to believers
ie those who are the temples of The Holy Spirit.
Therefore what I said stands. Good day to thee.

Are you out of your mind, or just havin' a really bad day?
If you were seminary-trained, I totally understand what your problem is.

Dese special "believers" of yours need to practice righteousness!
Another verse talks about the necessity of "working righteousness".
Of course, all of dese verses are not in your Bible, if you even have one, that is.

 

[revpete]

Are you out of your mind, or just havin' a really bad day?

Just read and try to understand the context. .

Pete

 

[ZacharyB]

Just read and try to understand the context.

Aw yes ... Playin' the "Context Excuse" card!

Like sayin' Romans 6:16-23 is not warning true believers with eternal death
(3 times in 8 verses, no less) ...
'cause of somethin' Paul said 3 chapters back about bein' sealed or some such thing!

Cute trick, if you can get away with it.
But, won't work on Judgment Day!

Believe me, the Lord Jesus has ALL of the bases covered ...!
He can say to anyone, "But, I warned you (in such and such a place)."

One time, He told me ...
"I'm not sending you only to the elect, but also to the non-elect,
so on Judgment Day they won't be able to say to Me, 'No one told me about this!"

 

[revpete]

Are you out of your mind, or just havin' a really bad day?

Just read and try to understand the context. Let me try to explain even though I already have. Believers have The Holy Spirit. Every believers works will be proved by The Lord Himself:

1 Corinthians: 3. 11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Any of our works or service done in our own strength will be burned up.

If you believe your own works can save or keep you saved, you're either lost (if you believe the former) or just piling up a load of wood, hay and stubble.

Pete