Favoritism in Unconditional Election

[praise_yeshua]

I rest my case.

I don't see your case.

 

[civic]

I rest my case.

You never had one

 

[TedT]

All men are equal sinners.

How can this be when it is obvious the reprobate are unforgivable and the sinful sheep are quite forgivable?

Is not the difference found in their relationship with YHWH and not in their sins?

And while I do agree with the next two quotes:

Jacob I loved, but Esau I (loved less) hated.

Obviously, not all men are equal to God.

It's simple God hates some people and loved some people

I contend most EMPHATICALLY this disparity is not from GOD due to any favouritism but is due to HIS response to the free will acceptance or rejection of HIS claims and His gospel in the beginning... HE loves those who put their faith in HIM even though they later sinned, and HE hates those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and therefore a false god.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How can this be when it is obvious the reprobate are unforgivable and the sinful sheep are quite forgivable?

Reprobation is progressive. It never takes place without an individual that is "reprobate" actually knows and understands the Gospel to the point of rejecting the Benevolence of God.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Which is another reason Calvinism is wrong. Those that believe not are condemned already but it simply isn't an issue of not knowing. It is because they have rejected what they believe to be true. Which creates in the individual a progressive downward "spiral" that can end in damnation.

Is not the difference found in their relationship with YHWH and not in their sins?

And while I do agree with the next two quotes:




I contend most EMPHATICALLY this disparity is not from GOD due to any favouritism but is due to HIS response to the free will acceptance or rejection of HIS claims and His gospel in the beginning... HE loves those who put their faith in HIM even though they later sinned, and HE hates those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and therefore a false god.

We are saying the same thing just differently. I run into this all the time in my career. The complexity of this topic often causes a variance in perspective. I see us as being compatible in this. Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks

 

[civic]

How can this be when it is obvious the reprobate are unforgivable and the sinful sheep are quite forgivable?

Is not the difference found in their relationship with YHWH and not in their sins?

And while I do agree with the next two quotes:




I contend most EMPHATICALLY this disparity is not from GOD due to any favouritism but is due to HIS response to the free will acceptance or rejection of HIS claims and His gospel in the beginning... HE loves those who put their faith in HIM even though they later sinned, and HE hates those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and therefore a false god.

Ephesians 2 says the following about believers in their unregenerate state. There are no special kinds of sinners- We were all at one time children of wrath just like the rest.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

 

[TedT]

Reprobation is progressive. It never takes place without an individual that is "reprobate" actually knows and understands the Gospel to the point of rejecting the Benevolence of God.

imCo, if we knew the gospel as proven we would also know the reality of hell - and no one who was not insane would reject GOD's proven gospel for a proven hell! The insane are to be cured, not damned! Therefore when we made our first rejection of GOD, whether after election or when causing reprobation we must have made that choice without proof, that is, as a real decision of faith, an unproven hope, Heb 11:1.

The proof that we later received as per Job 38:7 and Rom 1:18-20, which cemented our eternal relationship with HIM as HIS family or as HIS eternal enemies, was after our saving faith decisions by our free (NOT YET ENSLAVED TO SIN) will.

 

[TedT]

Ephesians 2 says the following about believers in their unregenerate state. There are no special kinds of sinners- We were all at one time children of wrath just like the rest.

...but why isn't this pov contrary to the assertion in John 3:18 that the believers are never condemned but those who never believed are condemned already ? unless our nature as sinners (though uncondemned for our sin, ie, as elect) we have the same nature as the children of wrath...which proves to me the ultimate disvalue of sin, any sin, as equally evil in HIS sight and what saves us (already, never condemned) is not in the nature of our sinfulness but in our relationship with YHWH as already our saviour.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I've told you multiple times now that this is an allegory to Christ and mankind. Christ is preferred before all. You've made this about yourself. Not Christ.

That's the weed speaking. Every time scripture talks about anything related to divine election, you claim it's talking about Christ. The elect? Only Christ is elect. Jacob I loved but Esau I hated? It's allegory about Christ. Using your technique, I could cancel all scriptures that I disagree with by saying it's somehow to be interpreted as a reference to Christ only.

No man is equal to God.

You either deliberately misinterpreted what I said, or ignorantly misinterpreted it. So let me rephrase what I said.

Obviously, to God, not all men are equal.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's the weed speaking.

So kind of you.

Every time scripture talks about anything related to divine election, you claim it's talking about Christ. The elect? Only Christ is elect. Jacob I loved but Esau I hated? It's allegory about Christ. Using your technique, I could cancel all scriptures that I disagree with by saying it's somehow to be interpreted as a reference to Christ only.

Election is always first about Christ.

Are you being conformed into the image of God's Son or not? If you're being conformed, then WHERE ARE YOU to be found?

You either deliberately misinterpreted what I said, or ignorantly misinterpreted it. So let me rephrase what I said.

Obviously, to God, not all men are equal.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

I believe these words. Do you?

The only "man" better than any other is the man Jesus Christ.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Election is always first about Christ.

Yes, but the "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" is NOT an allegory about Christ. That's silly beyond comprehension.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, but the "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" is NOT an allegory about Christ. That's silly beyond comprehension.

Not silly at all.

Did Jacob (Christ) take hold of the heel of Esau?

It is an appeal to the first prophecy given in Genesis concerning Christ. Jacob and Esau twins in the womb. Both sharing humanity.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The bruised heel of humanity experienced in the Incarnation of Christ. The "wounded servant". The first and second Adam. Esau was first. Esau sold his birthright.....

There is much more but I'll leave it at that.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Not silly at all.

Did Jacob (Christ) take hold of the heel of Esau?

It is an appeal to the first prophecy given in Genesis concerning Christ. Jacob and Esau twins in the womb. Both sharing humanity.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The bruised heel of humanity experienced in the Incarnation of Christ. The "wounded servant". The first and second Adam. Esau was first. Esau sold his birthright.....

There is much more but I'll leave it at that.

Origen would be proud.

 

[civic]

Not silly at all.

Did Jacob (Christ) take hold of the heel of Esau?

It is an appeal to the first prophecy given in Genesis concerning Christ. Jacob and Esau twins in the womb. Both sharing humanity.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The bruised heel of humanity experienced in the Incarnation of Christ. The "wounded servant". The first and second Adam. Esau was first. Esau sold his birthright.....

There is much more but I'll leave it at that.

Spiritual truth

 

[praise_yeshua]

Origen would be proud.

I quoted Paul. I didn't quote Origen. Never liked the man (Origen).

How about the Gospel preached to Abraham? Is that from Origen too?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I quoted Paul. I didn't quote Origen. Never liked the man (Origen).

Nevertheless, you two have a lot in common.

Modern Protestant evangelicals admire Origen for his passionate devotion to the scriptures but are frequently baffled or even appalled by his allegorical interpretation of them, which many believe ignores the literal, historical truth behind them.

[Origen] wrote hundreds of homilies covering almost the entire Bible, interpreting many passages as allegorical.

Origen based his teaching of the preexistence of souls on an allegorical interpretation of the creation story in the Book of Genesis.

Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.

 

[civic]

Nevertheless, you two have a lot in common.

Modern Protestant evangelicals admire Origen for his passionate devotion to the scriptures but are frequently baffled or even appalled by his allegorical interpretation of them, which many believe ignores the literal, historical truth behind them.

[Origen] wrote hundreds of homilies covering almost the entire Bible, interpreting many passages as allegorical.

Origen based his teaching of the preexistence of souls on an allegorical interpretation of the creation story in the Book of Genesis.

Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.

Guilt by association fallacy

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Guilt by association fallacy

No, similarity. @praise_yeshua Thinks that "Jacob I love but Esau I hated" is not to be taken as literal or historical, but as allegory. That's exactly the kind of thing Origen did. Now @praise_yeshua can backpedal and say it's both literal and allegorical, but then that would validate my point. If it's also literal and historical, it proves that God does love some people less than He loves others.

 

[brightfame52]

How can this be when it is obvious the reprobate are unforgivable and the sinful sheep are quite forgivable?

Is not the difference found in their relationship with YHWH and not in their sins?

And while I do agree with the next two quotes:




I contend most EMPHATICALLY this disparity is not from GOD due to any favouritism but is due to HIS response to the free will acceptance or rejection of HIS claims and His gospel in the beginning... HE loves those who put their faith in HIM even though they later sinned, and HE hates those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and therefore a false god.

God is discriminate with his love he loves some and he hates everybody else

 

[civic]

No, similarity. @praise_yeshua Thinks that "Jacob I love but Esau I hated" is not to be taken as literal or historical, but as allegory. That's exactly the kind of thing Origen did. Now @praise_yeshua can backpedal and say it's both literal and allegorical, but then that would validate my point. If it's also literal and historical, it proves that God does love some people less than He loves others.

Jesus said unless you hate your mother, father, sister, brother, wife,chlidren you cannot be His disciple. See Luke 14:26

So do you hate them ?

Was Jesus lying ?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Jesus said unless you hate your mother, father, sister, brother, wife,chlidren you cannot be His disciple. See Luke 14:26

So do you hate them ?

Was Jesus lying ?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you back to translating "hate" as "love less"? If so, it doesn't matter to me.