Excellent Discussion on OSAS

[FreeInChrist]

For those in the debate over Free Will .... ie. @Dizerner and @armylngst

@armylngst

Understanding God's Rejection of Esau's Plea.​

Biblical Context​

Esau is mentioned in Hebrews 12:17, where it states that he sought repentance with tears but found no place for it. This passage highlights a critical moment after Esau sold his birthright for a meal and later regretted his decision. His desire for the blessing came too late, as he had already rejected it.

Nature of Esau's Regret​

Esau's tears were not indicative of true repentance. He was sorrowful for the consequences of his actions rather than genuinely remorseful for his sin. This distinction is crucial; true repentance involves a heartfelt turning away from sin and a desire to seek God, which Esau lacked.

Theological Implications​

The rejection of Esau's repentance serves as a warning. It illustrates that one can be part of the covenant community without possessing true faith. Esau's story emphasizes the importance of sincere faith and the dangers of taking God's blessings lightly. His actions reflect a deliberate choice to disregard God's values, leading to his ultimate rejection.

Conclusion​

God did not deny Esau's repentance in a straightforward sense; rather, Esau's insincere desire for the blessing, without a true change of heart, resulted in his inability to find repentance. This serves as a cautionary tale about the seriousness of faith and the consequences of unrepentant sin.

 

[Dizerner]

This serves as a cautionary tale about the seriousness of faith and the consequences of unrepentant sin.

No, it means you have to passively shrug your hands to God's sovereignty and just hope you're elect.

 

[armylngst]

Why did Adam have to sin?

Ask God. I mean everything God has done is to bring glory to His name. Are you against that?

I never did. But I believe you have flirted with it.

Those are your words not mine. You assume that God cannot create something that thinks. That is your assumption.

I never said that.

What does that have to do with whether or not God predestined you or gave me free will?

We are slaves to sin. A slave can only hope that someone else buys them and makes them their slave, or someone comes and buys their freedom. Paul says, we are bought by God to be slaves of righteousness. We do not choose to allow God to buy us. That is something between the masters.

If man is so sinfully dirty then how did he get that way. He was born that way, right? Then you explain it.

Yes. Man was born a sinner because Adam was the federal head of humanity, as well as creation. God gave Adam dominion. Satan took that when Adam sinned. We see how powerful it is when we see him begging God to be allowed to do things to Job, and God says, sure.

I did not blaspheme God at all.

You don't get to define it so you can get out of it.

I did say based on your beliefs that God would have had to do certain not good things.

Except that in logic, that isn't true. Give your premises so we can show that they are wrong. In the end you are left with saying God had to do certain not good things, when He didn't, and thus you slander HIM.

If you had read enough of me on here on the forum you would answer this statement of yours for yourself. All others, know where I stand.

You said ......."So, at least you come out and tell us where the foundation of your problem is."

I do not have a problem. Your problem is you do not respect me enough to allow me to disagree with you with out putting me on the yellow brick road to wherever.

You keep putting God in the line of fire. Perhaps if you stopped doing that and slandering Him.

Now listen, and listen well.

I used to be a card carrying member of the preordained mindset. All of us Presbyterians had it infused into us from the moment of our John Calvin encouraged baby baptisms. Just as soon as we could understand things being said.

I could go into great depths of that, but I will spare others having to read what they already know about me.

But I will say that while they never taught OSAS there was a comfortable expectancy among the members that everyone was "heaven bound"

Eternal security, however it is only found in God if one is actually saved. We don't DESERVE it, but God is able and will do it for those who are His.

Even with my employer at the time who was a pathological liar and would freely admit he loved creating stories when the truth would have served him better.

And that employer had wandering hands with at least one of his employees that I knew about.

But he was certain beyond understanding, at least to me that he was heaven bound.

That's a problem with your boss. If you allow that to feed your belief, that's kind of bad. Only God and truth should feed your beliefs.

Point #2. I expect you to say you are not a Calvinist. I have yet to meet anyone who admits they follow him, even though it was from his writing that the West Minster Confession was written about 100 years after his death.

I am calvinistic. My beliefs align, but I don't find my peace there.

But he said one thing that was copied into the Westminster Confession which you can read at

Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 3

Chapter 3, paragraph 3 III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
(ref. 1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41. Rom. 9:22,23; Eph. 1:5,6; Prov. 16:4).

paragraph 4 IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
(ref. 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:18.)

Allow me to interrupt here for a moment....... and ask you what you think "are particularly and unchangeably designed;" means?

God did it personally, which is His right as sovereign God. He can do whatever He wants. Understand, if you say that makes God anything other than sovereign, perfect, Holy, or any of those things, you make yourself God's judge. YOu can argue that God didn't do it. Nothing wrong with that, however, then you would have to show what part of God's nature means He didn't do it. That He is holy? That He is just? That He is the Creator and thus the sovereign of all creation, down to how the Earth runs?

paragraph VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
(ref. Matt. 11:25,26; Rom. 9:17,18,21,22; 2 Tim. 2:19,20; Jude ver. 4; 1 Pet. 2:8.)

Now enter John Calvin. The one who started this. If you want to read all about his beliefs https://www.theologian-theology.com/theologians/john-calvin-predestination/

There is a verse in the Bible that says exactly what you put in bold. He has mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden. Nothing wrong there.

Predestination According to Calvin​

According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187).

Nothing wrong here. Esau is a prime example, as is Pharaoh. I think Calvin understood some of what Paul was saying when he said that Israel is under partial blindness until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. The group is not saved yet, however, individual members of Israel are always being saved... as individuals.

Question. Why do you suppose that as the predestined people that were picked before the creation of the world did not include God's first? I just wonder.

I don't get the question. It included everybody. However, the disciples were chosen special for Jesus at that time.

So there you have it..... my main reasons for going the free will route.

And if you answer my questions, then we can be done with one another.....

Again, we are slaves of sin. The only way to change that is to be bought by another master, or to be set free by the master. You cannot free yourself. Paul was pretty clear.

 

[armylngst]

Non sequitur.

Tears do not mean repentance, they are often quite manipulative or full of self-pity.

Ever heard the saying, "Only sorry he was caught."

It says he sought out repentance diligently with tears. That is, his mind was set on it. Until you deal with Esau and what is going on, that is what you have. Tears speaks to the diligence. He was so diligent it came to tears. However, I am not writing in support of Esau. Consider that it is you talking to God. Can God say no, or is there someone looking down to shake their finger and tell God He has to accept? Since man chose, God must acquiese, even though He is the offended party.

 

[Dizerner]

It says he sought out repentance diligently with tears. That is, his mind was set on it.

That's your Calvinist spin as a proponent of vessels of wrath.

You can seek something insincerely even with diligence.

Except Scripture clearly tells us God does not author sin, desires all to be saved, and will not refuse a truly penitent man.