Does Understanding Eschatology Prove You Are Saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m not going to engage with your worthless, endless emotional rants, but I will address that last sentence.

My so called "emotional rants" are based on scripture, so it seems that you think engaging with scriptural arguments is "worthless". Pathetic. So what that I'm showing passion about what I believe? That's not an emotional rant. You are doing the same, so stop being a hypocrite.

You have misunderstood.

If I misunderstood, then you failed to be clear because I just go by what you actually say.

When Jesus says in Matthew 7:23, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness,” it is not about lacking information—He is God and knows all things (Psalm 139:1-4). It is about a covenant relationship that never existed between Him and people not chosen by Him.

God does not “know” them in the saving sense because He never chose them to receive the gift of salvation (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:15-18). They were never drawn to Christ by the Father (John 6:44), never regenerated, never given spiritual life, and thus remain dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is not because they received the invitation and have a free will to accept or reject it. They can't - - not when they were spiritually dead and under bondage of the Devil. God did not prepare their hearts to receive it.

Just more of the same Calvinist nonsense that fails to take all of scripture into account. That's all I see here. I've already addressed all of this multiple times.

You need to consider this: the Scripture is clear—God is under no obligation to offer salvation to everyone (Romans 9:20-23).

I agree! Hello? You show yet again that you don't even understand what I believe. How can you try to refute something you don't even understand? Of course He is not under obligation to offer salvation to everyone, but He does because He is love (1 John 4:8). Scripture teaches that God is love, but your doctrine teaches that He is also hate. You clearly believe that God hates all of the non-elect because you believe He does nothing to give them any opportunity for eternal life and instead is pleased to leave them without hope with the expectation of experiencing eternal torment. But, scripture teaches that He takes no pleasure in their deaths and wanted them to repent instead (Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11). He wants everyone people to repent (2 Peter 3:9) and that's why He commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

He has mercy on whom He wills, and hardens whom He wills.

Exactly. But, that isn't just done randomly as you imagine. He wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32) because He is a very merciful and loving God. And He gives all people that opportunity to receive His mercy.

That is His sovereign right as Creator. Get it!

I agree. But, unlike you, I don't think there is no real basis for who He decides to have mercy on and who He decides to harden. In your view, it's just for reasons that only He knows, yet scripture says He has mercy on those who have mercy on others and on those who humble themselves and so on.

The problem is that you use all other Scripture with the word "all", thinking God is talking about every man on Earth having the opportunity to accept or reject by their own free will instead of all Elect from every nation before the foundation of the world.

That's not a problem, that's the truth. God wants literally all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved by graciously offering salvation to all people (Matthew 22:1-13, Titus 2:11) which was made possible by Jesus sacrificing Himself for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2).

Case closed. I am done with this subject.

You have barely even started with this subject. There's a lack of depth in your study of this topic, as your false claims reveal.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

An alcoholic very often will not recognize or acknowledge that he or she is an alcoholic... And in the case of being dead in sin, no.

But, many of them do, so I fail to see your point here. I'm saying it's possible for a sick person to recognize that they are sick and to admit that they can't heal themselves. That is the truth.

What do you think Jesus meant when He indicated that sinners are spiritually sick while saying He calls them to repentance (Mark 2:16-17)?

LOL! I don't even know how you get that out of what I said... but don't really care... <smile> But, well, par for the course, really... <smile>

Yes, you care so little that you can't help but to continue responding to me. That really shows how little you care. LOL!

It is. "...by grace you have been saved through faith... For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10). Our good works are the direct result of our having been born again.

You obviously misunderstood me, because I agree with what you're saying here. For some reason you seem to think that I believe we are saved and born again as a result of good works? I have never said that I believe that. I have said I don't believe that many times.

No, but again, the issue is what you think ~ erroneously ~ he said.

Nope. I know what he said and it's the same things you are saying.

I don't care what you call me, and yes, I absolutely do have Calvinist beliefs. So nothing for me to be offended at... What I continue to be astounded at is that you keep attributing beliefs to me ~ and all Calvinists ~ that are not Calvinist by any stretch. But you know, you do you. <smile>

Give me one example of something I have said that you believe or that Calvinists believe that isn't true. I show the implications of what your beliefs are and you continually deny them. But, the implications are clear. You just don't like to deal with them.

Sure. I've said that, too, many times. And... you're Arminian in your beliefs. <smile>

To some extent, I suppose. But, my understanding is that Arminius believed in total depravity. I don't. It seems like you claim that he believed in salvation by works, too. I'm not really familiar with what he believed because I don't care what he believed. But, he believed that salvation is by works, then I disagree with that, too.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Of course He is not under obligation to offer salvation to everyone, but He does because He is love (1 John 4:8). Scripture teaches that God is love, but your doctrine teaches that He is also hate. You clearly believe that God hates all of the non-elect because you believe He does nothing to give them any opportunity for eternal life and instead is pleased to leave them without hope with the expectation of experiencing eternal torment.

LOL. This proves that you have not listened to God's Word well. Yes, God loves His chosen people and hates the non-elect. It is in the Bible! Can't find it? Let me find one for you to see if you receive the love of the Truth:

Mal 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.

Confirmed in:

Rom 9:13-15
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Enough said! Paul uses this to illustrate God’s sovereign choice in election — that God’s plan and purposes are not based on human works or merit but on His own will and mercy. God will decide who will receive his mercy and compassion -- the one He loves, and who will NOT receive Mercy and compassion, the ones He hates. Even before they were born! Hello!

Another checkmate on you.

 

[PinSeeker]

What is there to reconcile? You're not being clear.

Maybe it's you being... dense... <smile> Nah, I think it's you just being... obtuse, and purposely so. <smile>

That is something that Jesus said that those who believe and are saved should pray.

Sure. Is this some kind of refutation of what I said? I don't think so...

What does this have to do with your question about praying for the salvation of those who are not saved?

Hmmmm... "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"...? You don't see the connection?

Do you think it would make sense for me to pray for God to save certain people when I believe in free will?

In your current mode of thinking, no. But that doesn't mean it doesn't...

I really don't know what in the world you are getting at here.

Ahhh... <smile>

As you said, surely not. Jesus was saying it would have been better had Judas never been physically born. That is obvious.

Yes, but why? I mean, that's a rhetorical question... Ugh. I'll just leave it there... Fair enough.

You are not being intellectually honest here at all.

I'm dismissing this...

Everything you're saying is based on extreme doctrinal bias.

Right back atcha.

You are doing everything except addressing what Jesus said...

And I say you're avoiding it.

, which had nothing to do with saying that the devil made Judas do what he did.

John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said what he said in John 13:2... "the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas... to betray (Jesus).

Judas made his own choices before the devil ever entered him.

Judas absolutely did make the choice to betray Jesus, yes, but because "the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas..." The will always follows the heart...

Look again at what Jesus actually said and please address it directly instead of trying to find a way around it.

Back atcha.

You are saying nothing about why Jesus said it would have been better had Judas never been born than to betray Him. You think Judas was saved...

I do. Because Jesus called Him.

, which means that his soul and spirit are in heaven now and that he will inherit eternal bodily life when Jesus returns

Yes.

How could him never being born, which would have meant he would not be saved and not have eternal life, be better than being saved and having eternal life?

You're missing the point of what Jesus said there. I'll just point out what John says in John 13:2 again, that the devil had put that into his heart. If one sins, that does not necessarily mean he has a heart of stone. For us Christians, even though we now have this heart of flesh given us by the father, we still sin...

Clearly, Jesus saw Judas as not being saved.

Disagree. We cannot make that statement. I mean, you can, but... <smile>

Jesus was saying that not being born was better than the fate that Judas had coming to him, which is eternal torment.

Disagree.

You are only kidding yourself if you think that Jesus would have called a saved person a devil. No, He absolutely would not have.

You're welcome to you opinion, of course.

I believe you are just denying the obvious here because of doctrinal bias.

Fair enough. I believe the same of you.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, you don't get it.

So much for you being done with this subject. LOL.

LOL. I knew you might come up with a false interpretation of Romans 7:7-11. So for the sake of readers, I will response this one time.

Oh boy. This ought to be good (entertainment for me).

Romans 7:7-11 talks about how sin is recognized through the law. Paul says, basically, “I wouldn’t have known what coveting was if the law hadn’t said, ‘You shall not covet.’” The law reveals what sin is by defining it, making people aware that certain acts are sinful.

But does that mean a person is not guilty of sin until they understand the law or recognize that they broke it? No, it doesn’t!!

Look at how you didn't even bother quoting the passage and you decided to make a claim from your imagination rather than showing Paul as having said that anywhere. Let me show you what it actually says...

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

You conveniently failed to mention that Paul said he was once alive without the law. That blows apart your belief that he was dead in sins from birth. And he said that "but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died". So, he clearly indicated that he was alive before he became aware of the law and the commandments, but once he become aware of the law, then he died (became dead in sins). So, as usual, you are blatantly trying to twist scripture to make it say what you want it to say, but I, and others not blinded by Calvinism, can see that.

Romans 7:7-11 teaches that the law makes us aware of sin, but sin was already present and active.

Paul said he was alive without the law, but only died (in sins) after he was made aware of sin by the law. So, sin isn't counted against someone unless they are aware that they are sinning, which makes perfect sense. But, you think babies sin, so you obviously have no clue about this.

The law exposes sin’s nature, but sin exists apart from our conscious knowledge of the law. Selah!

Psa 58:3-4
(3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
(4) Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

David says babies are already sinners, even before birth, showing sin’s presence before full understanding. It is becasue we all receive the curse of sin from Adam and Eve before we were even born! Selah!

What sins do babies commit?

Does this mean you think if a baby dies, they go to hell because of their supposed sins?

Consider the verses wisely:

Psa 51:5
(5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

LOL. Another verse that you misinterpret. That is talking about David's mother's sin, not his own sin. LOL. As if a baby in the womb is guilty of sin. Holy goodness. This is just unbelievable and utterly ludicrous.

Rom 3:25
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

See? The above verses teach that all humans inherit a sinful nature. This means we are spiritually dead in sin from birth, regardless of whether we understand the law or not. Selah!

LOL. You are butchering scripture beyond recognition. Yes, all people will eventually sin, but the idea that people are dead in sin from birth is utterly ridiculous! And Paul clearly taught otherwise in Romans 7, which you foolishly deny. He said when he became aware of sin, then he died and he said he was previously alive without the law before that. You are just twisting that passage to say what you want it to say and it's a pathetic thing to witness. You are not honest with scripture.

What you fail to understand what Romans 7:7-11 really saying. It is the law that defines sin and brings conscious awareness of specific sins (like coveting). Before law, sin was still there but more hidden or "dead" without the law's exposure. So the law serves to "reveal sin", to increase accountability and to lead to conviction. Simple as that!

So you are wrong, being "dead in sins" does NOT require prior knowledge of the law or conscious awareness of sin. Sin is an inherent condition from birth, as David notes, and Paul affirms in other passages, such as Ephesians 2:1! Romans 7:7-11 carries the law reveals sin, but does not create sin or the condition of being sinful. Selah!

If you insist a man, or even baby, cannot be “dead in sins” until they know the law, you are the one who is misunderstanding the purpose of the law in Romans 7. The law exposes sin and makes us aware of it, but sin and death in sin precede that awareness.

Checkmate, so-called grandmaster.

LOL! What a joke. A sad state of affairs. You have no conscience about twisting scripture to fit your doctrine. Sad. Paul very clearly said he did not become dead in sins until he became aware of what sin was by way of the law and he said he was alive without the law before that. You deny clear scripture to your shame.

 

[PinSeeker]

But, many of them do, so I fail to see your point here.

Nah, you're just avoiding it.

I agree with what you're saying here.

Good.

For some reason you seem to think that I believe we are saved and born again as a result of good works? I have never said that I believe that. I have said I don't believe that many times.

But you have denied, many times, that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again of the Spirit and thus of God.

Give me one example of something I have said that you believe or that Calvinists believe that isn't true.

That people can't choose the Lord, for one... And that one countless times...

I show the implications of what your beliefs are and you continually deny them.

Right, because the true implications are very different than what you make them out to be.

But, the implications are clear.

They should be, yes. <smile> But to you not so much, it seems...

You just don't like to deal with them.

With false implications, right; it's much better to correct those false implications, which usually means correcting false premises. And this I have done, more times than can be counted at this point.

...my understanding is that Arminius believed in total depravity.

Nope. That was his first "objection."

I don't.

I know. <smile> But again, total depravity and utter depravity are very different things.

It seems like you claim that he believed in salvation by works, too.

Ah, well, he at least inadvertently made faith out to be a work of man. Which... <smile> All Arminians do this, even not meaning to.

I'm not really familiar with what he believed...

Ah, in a certain sense you are... <smile>

because I don't care what he believed.

Okay, fair enough, but you do, to at least a very large extent, believe as he did. At least in the area of soteriology.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

You conveniently failed to mention that Paul said he was once alive without the law. That blows apart your belief that he was dead in sins from birth.

No, what you believe or assume is what is falling apart. You were under the false impression that Paul lived a sinless life before He heard the law. LOL!!!!!!!!!

The answer is obviously no. Paul did NOT claim to be sinless. In fact, throughout his writings, Paul acknowledges his own struggle with sin:

1. Romans 7:14-25 vividly describes his inner conflict — wanting to do good but often failing because of sin dwelling in his flesh.
2. In 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul calls himself the "chief of sinners."
3. He depends on God's grace and the righteousness through faith in Christ, not his own perfection.

What Romans 7:9 actually means:

1. Before Paul understood God’s law, he was “alive” in a sense—ignorant of sin’s full power.
2. When the law revealed God’s commands, Paul became aware that sin was alive and active within him.
3. “I died” (verse 10) means he realized his own spiritual death or inability to fulfill the law perfectly.

So Romans 7 shows Paul’s honest struggle with sin, not that he was sinless since birth, which is biblically impossible! Do you honestly expect to think that Paul threw the food at his mother in rage at age 2 can get away without guilt of this sin simply becasue he did not know about the law? You are a hoot!

Another checkmate on you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. This proves that you have not listened to God's Word well. Yes, God loves His chosen people and hates the non-elect. It is in the Bible! Can't find it? Let me find one for you to see if you receive the love of the Truth:

Mal 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.

Confirmed in:

Rom 9:13-15
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Enough said! Paul uses this to illustrate God’s sovereign choice in election — that God’s plan and purposes are not based on human works or merit but on His own will and mercy. God will decide who will receive his mercy and compassion -- the one He loves, and who will NOT receive Mercy and compassion, the ones He hates. Even before they were born! Hello!

Another checkmate on you.

I wonder what you meant when you said you were done with this subject. LOL.

Once again you have butchered scripture. Tell me, do you hate your family as Jesus commanded? Jesus said we should hate the members of our family.

Luke 14:26 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.

You are misinterpeting Romans 9:13. It's not talking about God literally hating Esau personally, as you imagine. Did you not read the verses which come before it?

Romans 9:10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Paul indicated that God loved Jacob and hated Esau in the context that "the older shall serve the younger". You probably think Romans 9:12 is about Jacob and Esau as individuals, but it's not. Observe....

Genesis 25:21 Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” 24 So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb.

Paul was referring to the nations/peoples that would descend from Jacob and Esau and he said the older nation would serve the younger nation, which is exactly what happened historically as the nation that descended from the older one who was born first (Esau), which was Edom, served the nation that descended from the one who was born second (Jacob), which was obviously Israel. So, Romans 9:13 has NOTHING to do with the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather had to do with God's plans for the nations that would descend from them. The Messiah, and salvation, was determined by God, to come through Jacob's line (Israel) rather than Esau's (Edom). God didn't literally love Jacob himself and hate Esau himself from birth, as you falsely imagine. He blessed Jacob moreso than Esau because of having the Messiah and salvation come about through his line. God didn't hate Esau at all and doesn't hate anyone. God is love (1 John 4:8). You contradict God's character with your false doctrine.

God's purpose in election was to have salvation come through Jacob's line (Israel) instead of Esau's (Edom). That's what it means, and you'd know that if you actually bothered to look at the OT scripture that Paul was referencing in Romans 9:12. Instead, you interpret Romans 9:13 in such a way that contradicts a great deal of scripture. That's why I say you cherry pick scriptures and draw conclusions from them rather than looking at all of scripture. You clearly didn't look at Genesis 25 when determining what Paul was talking about in relation to Jacob and Esau.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nah, you're just avoiding it.

That's a lie. You think you're being clear, but you weren't being clear to me. I avoid NOTHING and you know that. This is a case of you just not wanting to clarify what you were trying to say. My point was not that all who are spiritually sick, which is how Jesus defined sinners (Mark 2:16-17), end up acknowleding that they are sick and can't heal themselves. My point was that some of them do and Jesus didn't say anything about them needing to be healed (born again) first in order to acknowledge that they are sick while putting their trust in the physician (Jesus).

But you have denied, many times, that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again of the Spirit and thus of God.

I have never done that. What in the world are you talking about? What made you decide to repeatedly lie all of a sudden? I have said many times we are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works and that good works are what God prepares for us AFTER we become saved/born again, as indicated in Ephesians 2:8-10. I have never even come close to denying that our good works are the result of our having been saved.

That people can't choose the Lord, for one... And that one countless times...

What kind of "choice" is it if there is no other choice that they could make? It's not their choice in your view, it's God's choice alone. Why would you deny that?

Right, because the true implications are very different than what you make them out to be.

Wrong. Let me give you an example of something you believe that implies something else. If you claim that salvation is entirely up to God and that God chose to save some, but not all, as you do, then that implies that you believe it is not possible for all people to be saved. Yet, you claimed that you believe it's possible for all people to be saved. In some sense that only makes sense to you.

Nope. That was his first "objection."

I have seen that he believed in some version of total depravity, but I guess different than Calvin did. Whatever. Who cares? I'm pretty sure you have said that Arminius believed in salvation by works and I don't believe that, so I don't care to have that label because of that.

I know. <smile> But again, total depravity and utter depravity are very different things.

So, tell me the difference then, so I don't have to guess as to what you believe about that.

Ah, well, he at least inadvertently made faith out to be a work of man. Which... <smile> All Arminians do this, even not meaning to.

Nowhere does scripture teach that faith is a work in the sense that passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 talk about. Faith is contrasted with works as it relates to salvation. Salvation IS by grace. We all agree on that. And it IS through faith but it IS NOT by works. So, faith is not the type of work that someone could boast about if salvation was by works. Which makes sense because faith involves putting one's trust in Christ rather than themselves or anyone or anything else. There's no reason to boast of yourself when you are putting your trust in Christ for salvation while admitting that you can't save yourself.

Ah, in a certain sense you are... <smile>

There's always a certain sense with you. <laugh>

Okay, fair enough, but you do, to at least a very large extent, believe as he did. At least in the area of soteriology.

I couldn't care less. I'm fine with you calling me Arminian if he did indeed teach the same things I believe. There's conflicting information out there about that, so I prefer not to call myself that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, what you believe or assume is what is falling apart. You were under the false impression that Paul lived a sinless life before He heard the law. LOL!!!!!!!!!

The answer is obviously no. Paul did NOT claim to be sinless.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your reading comprehension skills are TERRIBLE. I did not say he was sinless before he heard the law. I'm saying his sins weren't held against him because he wasn't aware of them. He wasn't considered dead in his sins until he became aware of them by way of the law. Which makes sense. How can someone be guilty of something that they're not even aware of? That's nonsense. God holds sin against people when they know that they are sinning. You think he holds sin against babies! LOL! What sins do babies commit? Such nonsense.

Paul specifically said he was alive without the law once before he became aware of the law and once he became aware he died. What do you think that means?

In fact, throughout his writings, Paul acknowledges his own struggle with sin:

1. Romans 7:14-25 vividly describes his inner conflict — wanting to do good but often failing because of sin dwelling in his flesh.
2. In 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul calls himself the "chief of sinners."
3. He depends on God's grace and the righteousness through faith in Christ, not his own perfection.

Of course. I never said he was sinless. LOL. What a joke this is.

What Romans 7:9 actually means:

1. Before Paul understood God’s law, he was “alive” in a sense—ignorant of sin’s full power.
2. When the law revealed God’s commands, Paul became aware that sin was alive and active within him.
3. “I died” (verse 10) means he realized his own spiritual death or inability to fulfill the law perfectly.

So Romans 7 shows Paul’s honest struggle with sin, not that he was sinless since birth, which is biblically impossible! Do you honestly expect to think that Paul threw the food at his mother in rage at age 2 can get away without guilt of this sin simply becasue he did not know about the law? You are a hoot!

LOL. You are the hoot. You think that babies and toddlers, etc. are dead in sins as if God's wrath is on those who aren't fully aware of what sin is. What a joke. God is merciful and loving and just. There's no mercy and love and justice in condemning babies and toddlers and anyone who isn't aware of what they're doing. Unbelievable.

Another checkmate on you.

LOL. Hardly. I had the final checkmate on you when this discussion began already.

By the way, for being done with this subject, you sure don't seem to be done with this subject. LOL.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your reading comprehension skills are TERRIBLE. I did not say he was sinless before he heard the law. I'm saying his sins weren't held against him because he wasn't aware of them. He wasn't considered dead in his sins until he became aware of them by way of the law. Which makes sense. How can someone be guilty of something that they're not even aware of? That's nonsense.

Foolish. You were the one that suggested that Paul was not "aware" of his sin before the law "as if" Paul was living sinless before the law. But you are right, Paul DID sin before the law. That does NOT mean God will not use his "pre-law" sins against him, which is another lie of the free will doctrine. You are trying to based this on "babies" that you seem to be obsessed with.

God holds sin against people when they know that they are sinning.

False. God holds sin against people whether they know they were sinning or not. In fact, none of us can remember EVERY SIN committed in our life anyway. How many times have you killed someone with your hatred toward him. How many time have you lusted after you look at woman even for a microsecond? All of your actions, thought, and speak will be given account to God on Judgment day, whether you know the law or not.

You think he holds sin against babies! LOL! What sins do babies commit? Such nonsense.

Really?

Seriously, you do not have to worry about unborn babies, stillborn babies, little children, children under the age of 12, etc. I know this is the great "Red Herring" that those who believe in Free will usually key in on, and in some respects it is somewhat confusing, until we accept that God is righteous and really "TRUST" that God will judge no one unrighteously.

Revelation 16:7

• "And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments."

That's the "great" thing about Predestination that separates it from the doctrines of salvation by free will. God can save anyone He wants, at anytime, for any reason, regardless of anything that person has or has not done! Period! He can show Mercy on an aborted baby, a murderer, or a grown man with the mind of a 6-month-old child. "Precisely" because it is not by free will, but by God's will. Trust in Him.

Romans 9:15-16

• "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
• So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Because God can save whoever He wants, regardless of their will, that is why we need not worry about babies or children who have had their lives snuffed out before they even start!

By contrast, in the unbiblical doctrine of free will, men are saved by doing something of their own (alleged) free will. That would effectively "exclude" infants or the mentally handicapped who couldn't of their own free will come to Christ. That is why they invented the false doctrine called the "Age of Accountability." Because even they saw the bankruptcy of this regarding the sins of children too young to choose. But with the doctrines of Grace in the sovereignty of God's Predestination, He can save that infant, that child from a miscarriage or abortion, that mentally ill man, without his/her having to do one blessed thing like accepting Him of their own will. And without denying God's law of man's accountability by inventing an "age where sin matters." Thus if it's true that it is by God's will, He can save every single aborted baby if He chooses to do so! And we must also remember that not one single baby will die without His say so! Thus Judas couldn't die in infancy, while David's son could and did. Because it was according to God's will, NOT the free will of the baby.

Psalms 119:7

• "I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments."

So what we do is put our trust in the Lord, that his "judgments" are righteous judgments, and He will judge no one unrighteously. We don't have to sit around worrying about little babies or young children being tormented in Hell, because we have full trust in God. That is a "red Herring" that we need not concern ourselves with. Our concern should be for the people who are here in this world, and we let God take care of those who enter the afterlife. Because we have faith and trust in His judgments.

2nd Corinthians 3:4-5

• "And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
• Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;"

Paul specifically said he was alive without the law once before he became aware of the law and once he became aware he died. What do you think that means?

I already explained this. Read again.

Of course. I never said he was sinless. LOL. What a joke this is.

It is based on your assumption that his sins, before the law, cannot be used against Him "as if" he was just a baby.

You think that babies and toddlers, etc. are dead in sins as if God's wrath is on those who aren't fully aware of what sin is.

What your teaching is effectively declaring is that wicked people "CANNOT" possibly die as children or babies. By whose authority can one make such an outrageous claim? Clearly, this doctrine puts forth the untenable hypothesis that the wicked cannot die as children. So again I ask, what is the authority or justification for such? When God told the children of Israel to kill the heathen babies in the land they conquered, and what God said "thine eye should not spare?" Should we then attempt to hypothesize that these children were made righteous in God's sight, or that they all went to heaven because they were young and never heard God's law? Humm? No, we cannot come to that conclusion based on God's Words. Because we'd be effectively leaning to our own understanding, and defining God by what seems right in our own eyes, rather than by His authoritative word. I trust that when God had all the babies killed, He knew what He was doing, and it was righteous judgment. I don't second guess Him, or think that I know more than He does about the innocence of children.

Proverbs 3:5-7

• "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
• In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
• Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."

We cannot outsmart God thinking we can fully understand Him. This idea seems to me (an imperfect being like you) to be another case of man attempting to "reason" within himself that God could not possibly "not save" children below a certain age. Even when one is careful not to give that certain age, the doctrine of "an age of accountability" is obviously being delineated in this teaching. But the age of accountability is a fatally flawed doctrine. No matter who teaches it.

God is merciful and loving and just. There's no mercy and love and justice in condemning babies and toddlers and anyone who isn't aware of what they're doing. Unbelievable.

Ahem... so that dying as a baby (and it's anyone's guess what people mean by baby) automatically makes one saved? I have a problem with that qualifier, because in the whole Bible, this doctrine of "age of accountability" is nowhere taught. And there is ample evidence that it is not true. For example, if there were just ten righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah, those cities would have not been destroyed of God. But they were destroyed of God, meaning that God didn't consider the babies of that city righteous. This proves your doctrine FALSE to begin with! So much for playing a chess game.

Sure, we as finite human beings might consider them innocent, but God "clearly" did not, and He said so. That should speak volumes about babies and children, etc., and man's misguided belief that they are innocent in God's eyes. No, they are innocent in man's eyes because man doesn't see as God sees, and His thoughts are not God's thoughts. That's precisely why we have "authority" of scripture to guide us, and must not go by what we "think" is right. The word is the ultimate authority.

Mark 1:22

• "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes."

Likewise, we have authority "only" when we come with the Word of God.

LOL. Hardly. I had the final checkmate on you when this discussion began already.

Say the one who proudly loses a chess game in four moves and then declares himself a grandmaster.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I wonder what you meant when you said you were done with this subject. LOL.

Once again you have butchered scripture. Tell me, do you hate your family as Jesus commanded? Jesus said we should hate the members of our family.

Luke 14:26 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.

Misapplication of Scripture. Nothing to do with Romans 9:13. But I will respond to this for anyone want to know:

Matthew 10:34-36

• "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
• For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
• And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Two different households at enmity (hared) with each other so that in this sense, there has to be this natural hostility, hate, animosity and antipathy between us. If we are in Christ, there is enmity and a sword between us wherein we are not friends, but enemies of different spiritual kingdoms. We do not love the enemy of Christ, we hate them with a perfect hatred (Psalms 139:22). And let's not forget, one scripture cannot make null and void another, nor does it contradict another. So then, if the Bible is true, Psalms 139:22 is true. And love of friends is not the same as love of enemies.

Luke 14:26

• "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Confirmed yet again that this is true. For it is self evident that the enemies of Christ's kingdom, are the enemies of those who live and reign in Christ's kingdom. And warfare with His word, brings the spiritual sword that we wield in righteousness. It is not in unjust judgments, but in righteous testimony. A man's foes (enemies) shall be they of his own household. Unbelievers in the congregation, just as there were in Israel. And in this context, it illustrates vividly this sword, hatred and those of which household we fight with. With our friends, not our foes.

Now back to Romans 9:13...

You are misinterpeting Romans 9:13. It's not talking about God literally hating Esau personally, as you imagine. Did you not read the verses which come before it?

It's always amazing to me (no matter how many times I hear it) how professed Christians will completely ignore what God actually says (like He hates someone), and then ask, "if this is true..." Clearly, God cannot love everyone if He unambiguously says He hates the wicked! For example:

Pro 6:16-19
(16) These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
(17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
(18) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
(19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Psa 5:5
(5) The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Again, Clearly the Lord hates the workers of iniquity!

Psa 11:5
(5) The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Down to His very soul, He hates the wicked!

Rom 9:13
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So it shouldn't even be an "if God hates," to any faithful Christian, it should be God says He hates, and even specifically named Esau whom He hated, so the question is, do we believe Him. A better question would be why? And the answer is because God is a Holy God and sin is abhorrent to Him. While we (mankind) may just wink at sin, to a Holy God wherein is no darkness and who is without sin, it is unbelievably abhorrent.

Paul was referring to the nations/peoples that would descend from Jacob and Esau and he said the older nation would serve the younger nation, which is exactly what happened historically as the nation that descended from the older one who was born first (Esau), which was Edom, served the nation that descended from the one who was born second (Jacob), which was obviously Israel. So, Romans 9:13 has NOTHING to do with the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather had to do with God's plans for the nations that would descend from them. The Messiah, and salvation, was determined by God, to come through Jacob's line (Israel) rather than Esau's (Edom). God didn't literally love Jacob himself and hate Esau himself from birth, as you falsely imagine. He blessed Jacob moreso than Esau because of having the Messiah and salvation come about through his line. God didn't hate Esau at all and doesn't hate anyone. God is love (1 John 4:8). You contradict God's character with your false doctrine.

No, you misinterpreted. This has nothing to do with their "nations." as you tried to apply to context before verse 13. You need to read context after verse 13 for clarification.

Rom 9:13-27
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
(25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
(26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
(27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

See, it is all about ALL MEN, God chosen and nonelect. Elect He loved. Nonelect He hated. God is "contrasting" one (love) over against the exact opposite (hate) in these two men, as with all men. God is most certainly not illusterating here how he loved Esau also, just a little less. Esau found no repentance because God didn't love Him and so didn't give him repentance.

Hebrews 12:16-17

• "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
• For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."

If God had loved Esau (even a "little less" than Jacob) Esau would have found grace in the eyes of the Lord. But it is written, Esau have I hated, thus he found no repentance, no grace, no hope of inheritance with God. Likewise with all Non-Elect.

God's purpose in election was to have salvation come through Jacob's line (Israel) instead of Esau's (Edom).

Jacob's line is a picture of God's chosen. Esau's line is a picture of Non-Elect who cannot repent or have hope.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Also I believe that the Scriptures are very clear that we ALL were once children of disobedience, children of wrath, who were living in sin being hateful and unrighteous, and then we were saved and made righteous by the washing of regeneration. There's nothing false about God's Word.

Titus 3:3-5

• "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
• But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
• Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, BY the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

Not because we get to choose Him and accept his offer of regeneration. God does all the work for us! Unambiguously, God declares we were disobedient, foolish, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, we were hateful, and hating one another, and yet afterward, Christ saved us by the washing of regeneration. He saved us by the washing of regeneration. We recognized salvation after God gave us the repentance and faith to realize it. Of course, it only applies to those whom God has mercy upon. Not upon ALL and EVERY man.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Foolish.

Yes, I agree that your comments throughout this discussion have been consistently foolish.

What were you saying about being done with this subject? LOL.

You were the one that suggested that Paul was not "aware" of his sin before the law "as if" Paul was living sinless before the law.

No, I did not. Your imagination is getting in the way again, causing you to foolishly try to put words in my mouth.

I never said he was living a sinless life before that. I'm saying that he said he was alive without the law before he became aware of sin, which means he was innocent of being guilty of his sins (not dead in his sins) before that. How can someone be guilty of something that they know nothing about? You're not even thinking here.

Paul very specifically said after saying he was once alive without the law "but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death" (Romans 7:9-10). You are blatantly denying what he was teaching there. He said he was alive without the law before he knew the law and he was contrasting that with being dead in sins. Being alive without the law doesn't mean he was sinless any more than being dead in sins means someone is sinning every second of their lives. But, what he specifically pointed out was that it was not until "the commandment came" that he died (became did in sins). He said he found the commandment of the law "to bring death". That means he wasn't dead in sins until he became aware of the commandments of the law. It's very clear, yet you still can't see it.

But you are right, Paul DID sin before the law.

Yes, but he was not aware that he was sinning, so he was not dead in sins. You can't be dead in sins without even knowing what sin is. That's ludicrous. That's why he said he was alive without the law. He was not dead in sins at that point because he didn't even know what sin was yet. This is actually quite simple to understand, but your doctrinal bias is clouding your vision.

That does NOT mean God will use his "pre-law" sins against him which is another lie of the free will doctrine.

That is exactly what I'm saying! Hello? What lie are you talking about when you're saying exactly what I believe? Paul was not dead in sins at that time when he was not aware of the law and what sin was which is why he said he was alive (not dead in sins) at that time. So, of course his "pre-law" sins are not used against him since he was not dead in sins at that time. Are you saying you agree with me about that then? I thought you believe

You are basing it on babies that you seem to be obsessed on.

You are the one who thinks that people are guilty of sin from birth, not me. Are you now backtracking on that? Clarify this now. Do you or do you not believe that people are dead in sins from birth with people being guilty of sin with God's wrath upon them from birth?

False. God holds sin against people whether they know they were sinning or not.

LOL. Is Romans 1:18-32 in your Bible or not? Paul says there that God's wrath is against people because of them knowingly suppressing the truth in unrighteous. According to Paul, they suppress the truth that they know and exchange the truth for a lie while giving up their knowledge of God in favor of giving themselves over to all kinds of sin, including homosexuality, murder and so on, and he said they have no excuse for that.

You seem to think that people don't know that they are sinning when they sin. In the case of young kids or those with mental issues, that could be true, but God certainly does not hold sins against those people when they don't even fully understand what sin is. That's ridiculous. That's not the merciful and gracious and loving and patient God of the Bible. For the most part, people know they are sinning, as Romans 1:18-32 makes clear. They knowingly suppress the truth, they knowingly refuse to glorify God and be thankful to Him despite knowing Him because of Him making Himself plain to everyone by what He has made. Your doctrine blatantly contradicts Romans 1:18-32 and you have no way around that.

In fact, none of us can remember EVERY SIN committed in our life anyway. How many times have you killed someone with your hatred toward him. How many time have you lusted after you look at woman even for a microsecond? All of your actions, thought, and speak will be given account to God on Judgment day, whether you know the law or not.

LOL. Remembering each sin and knowing what sin is are two completely different things. This is yet another in your long list of weak arguments.

Really?

Answering a question with a question? Was my question too difficult for you? Did it seem like I wasn't asking you a genuine question? What sins do you believe babies commit? Just answer the question. It's simple and straightforward.

Seriously, you do not have to worry about unborn babies, stillborn babies, little children, children under the age of 12, etc. I know this is the great "Red Herring" that those who believe in Free will usually key in on, and in some respects it is somewhat confusing, until we accept that God is righteous and really "TRUST" that God will judge no one unrighteously.

What are you saying here, that you believe all "unborn babies, stillborn babies, little children, children under the age of 12, etc." go to heaven because their sins are not held against them? If so, I would agree.

How can you say that God will judge no one unrighteously when you believe He will send many to eternal torment for no discernible reason? You do not believe they could do anything but sin against God. You do not believe they were capable of repenting and believing since you believe one can only do that if God gives it to them, so what exactly is the reason that God sends them to eternal torment? You believe that God punishes people for not doing something (repenting and believing) that they weren't even capable of doing? How is that a case of righteous judgment?

Revelation 16:7

• "And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments."

That's the "great" thing about Predestination that separates it from the doctrines of salvation by free will. God can save anyone He wants, at anytime, for any reason, regardless of anything that person has or has not done! Period! He can show Mercy on an aborted baby, a murderer, or a grown man with the mind of a 6-month-old child. "Precisely" because it is not by free will, but by God's will. Trust in Him.

So, do you also think He can also not show mercy "on an aborted baby" or "a grown man with the mind of a 6-month-old child" if He wants to? God is love (1 John 4:8). Why would a God who is love withhold mercy from those who can't help how they are and are unable to repent and believe? Why are you so willing to contradict God's character with your interpretations?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Romans 9:15-16

• "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
• So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Because God can save whoever He wants, regardless of their will, that is why we need not worry about babies or children who have had their lives snuffed out before they even start!

Again, you cherry pick scripture. I guess that's just something you have decided that you will always do using your free will. God wants to have mercy on all people, as Paul said here:

Romans 11:30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

You can't try to say this isn't talking about God wanting to have mercy upon literally all people. It indicates that He wants to have mercy on the same ones He committed to disobedience, which is all people because all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Of course God alone decides who to have mercy on and who to harden, but He doesn't just do that randomly. Scripture teaches that He has mercy on the merciful and on those who humble themselves and so on. That's how He decided to have mercy on people. He gives all people the opportunity to receive His mercy because He is a very merciful God.

By contrast, in the unbiblical doctrine of free will, men are saved by doing something of their own (alleged) free will. That would effectively "exclude" infants or the mentally handicapped who couldn't of their own free will come to Christ. That is why they invented the false doctrine called the "Age of Accountability." Because even they saw the bankruptcy of this regarding the sins of children too young to choose. But with the doctrines of Grace in the sovereignty of God's Predestination, He can save that infant, that child from a miscarriage or abortion, that mentally ill man, without his/her having to do one blessed thing like accepting Him of their own will. And without denying God's law of man's accountability by inventing an "age where sin matters." Thus if it's true that it is by God's will, He can save every single aborted baby if He chooses to do so! And we must also remember that not one single baby will die without His say so!

LOL. What a word salad you came up with here. Hilarious. So many words to say nothing.

You say that you disagree that people have to do something of their own free will to be saved. That tells me that if someone you don't know asked you what they had to do to be saved, you could not possibly answer that question the way Paul and Silas did when the jailer asked them that question.

To be consistent with your doctrine, you would have to answer "There is nothing you can do to be saved. You just have to hope that God gives you faith in Jesus so that you will be saved". But, that's not how Paul and Silas answered that question.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Notice here that Paul and Silas told the jailer that what he had to do to be saved was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". But, notice something else. They indicated that the same thing was true for those in his household. So, Paul and Silas told someone who they didn't know that he needed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved and they said nothing about having to wait for God to give him faith first or any of that nonsense. They clearly believed he was capable of doing that right then and there. And they said the same was true for those in his household. And I'm sure they would have given the same answer to anyone who asked them that question because all people are capable of choosing to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. Otherwise, God wouldn't want all people to be saved, but He does (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

You could not answer that question the way Paul and Silas did because you would be lying if you did. You would not know if the person was elect or not, so you'd be lying to tell the person they had to put their faith in Jesus to be saved if they were not one of the elect that you think are only saved by God's choice and not man's.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Misapplication of Scripture. Nothing to do with Romans 9:13. But I will respond to this for anyone want to know:

Matthew 10:34-36

• "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
• For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
• And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Two different households at enmity (hared) with each other so that in this sense, there has to be this natural hostility, hate, animosity and antipathy between us. If we are in Christ, there is enmity and a sword between us wherein we are not friends, but enemies of different spiritual kingdoms. We do not love the enemy of Christ, we hate them with a perfect hatred (Psalms 139:22). And let's not forget, one scripture cannot make null and void another, nor does it contradict another. So then, if the Bible is true, Psalms 139:22 is true. And love of friends is not the same as love of enemies.

Luke 14:26

• "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Confirmed yet again that this is true. For it is self evident that the enemies of Christ's kingdom, are the enemies of those who live and reign in Christ's kingdom. And warfare with His word, brings the spiritual sword that we wield in righteousness. It is not in unjust judgments, but in righteous testimony. A man's foes (enemies) shall be they of his own household. Unbelievers in the congregation, just as there were in Israel. And in this context, it illustrates vividly this sword, hatred and those of which household we fight with. With our friends, not our foes.

Now back to Romans 9:13...


It's always amazing to me (no matter how many times I hear it) how professed Christians will completely ignore what God actually says (like He hates someone), and then ask, "if this is true..." Clearly, God cannot love everyone if He unambiguously says He hates the wicked! For example:

Pro 6:16-19
(16) These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
(17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
(18) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
(19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Psa 5:5
(5) The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Again, Clearly the Lord hates the workers of iniquity!

Psa 11:5
(5) The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Down to His very soul, He hates the wicked!

Rom 9:13
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So it shouldn't even be an "if God hates," to any faithful Christian, it should be God says He hates, and even specifically named Esau whom He hated, so the question is, do we believe Him. A better question would be why? And the answer is because God is a Holy God and sin is abhorrent to Him. While we (mankind) may just wink at sin, to a Holy God wherein is no darkness and who is without sin, it is unbelievably abhorrent.



No, you misinterpreted. This has nothing to do with their "nations." as you tried to apply to context before verse 13. You need to read context after verse 13 for clarification.

Rom 9:13-27
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
(25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
(26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
(27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

See, it is all about ALL MEN, God chosen and nonelect. Elect He loved. Nonelect He hated. God is "contrasting" one (love) over against the exact opposite (hate) in these two men, as with all men. God is most certainly not illusterating here how he loved Esau also, just a little less. Esau found no repentance because God didn't love Him and so didn't give him repentance.

Hebrews 12:16-17

• "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
• For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."

If God had loved Esau (even a "little less" than Jacob) Esau would have found grace in the eyes of the Lord. But it is written, Esau have I hated, thus he found no repentance, no grace, no hope of inheritance with God. Likewise with all Non-Elect.



Jacob's line is a picture of God's chosen. Esau's line is a picture of Non-Elect who cannot repent or have hope.

You are just blatantly ignoring that Paul referred to Genesis 25:23 which refers to the NATIONS that descended from Jacob and Esau. How can I reason with someone who just IGNORES so much scripture and doesn't care about context? What a waste of time this is.

As for your claim about Jacob's line being a picture of God's chosen and Esau's being a picture of Non-Elect who cannot repent or have hope? What a joke! That is not taught anywhere in scripture! You know Jacob's line including a great number of people who willfully rebelled against God, don't you? Including the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus ranted against, as recorded in Matthew 23? You say they are a picture of God's chosen when most of them rejected Christ? LOL! You just make things up in your imagination. It's just a joke.

I don't think I can take much more of this. You should have kept your word when you said you were done with this subject. You obviously didn't mean that. But, being who I am, I can't see your false teaching and just let it go. But, if you would just stop doing that and be done with this subject, I wouldn't try to bring it up again. But, as long as you keep misinterpreting scripture passage after scripture passage, I have to continue correcting your false interpretations because that's what I do.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You are just blatantly ignoring that Paul referred to Genesis 25:23 which refers to the NATIONS that descended from Jacob and Esau. How can I reason with someone who just IGNORES so much scripture and doesn't care about context? What a waste of time this is.

LOL...God is painting a spiritual picture of nations between two people. Read again:

Rom 9:4-13
(4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
(5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
(8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
(10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(11) (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;)
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

As for your claim about Jacob's line being a picture of God's chosen and Esau's being a picture of Non-Elect who cannot repent or have hope? What a joke! That is not taught anywhere in scripture! You know Jacob's line including a great number of people who willfully rebelled against God, don't you?

Indeed! Of course, they are external people of the nation/kingdom of Israel. Esau's line represents unsaved people of the world (eg. kingdom of darkness - spiritual bondage) just as we all once were before being called.

Including the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus ranted against, as recorded in Matthew 23?

Of course, the Scribes and Pharisees are God's people, but they are NOT SAVED. They are only external believers of the kingdom. Didn't you read in Scripture where Christ said the kingdom was taken from them at the Cross?

Mat 21:42-45
(42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
(45) And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Do you receive this or are you in denial? Jewish people like chief priests and Pharisees were the BUILDERS of the congregation! They rejected Christ. The kingdom was taken from them for their unbelief. And the kingdom was given to the Holy Nation where GENTILES and JEWISH CHRISTIANS are also part of Jacob's line under Christ's everlasting which the seed be called! Its all in Scripture whether your doctrine likes it or not!

You say they are a picture of God's chosen when most of them rejected Christ? LOL! You just make things up in your imagination. It's just a joke.

Not at all. The joke is on YOU because you do not get it. God's people or kingdom is made up of two group of people. It is about a covenant relationship! The Chosen Elect (remnant of the kingdom) and the unsaved professed believers Like Chief priests, Pharisees, scribes and all people deceived by them, as well as false prophets and christs and all people deceived by them in the New Testament congregation today!

I don't think I can take much more of this.

Just as I expected from losing Grandmaster.

You should have kept your word when you said you were done with this subject.

Yes, I did say that, but the Holy Spirit told me to keep going to prove your doctrine wrong for the sake of readers here.

You obviously didn't mean that.

Sorry. Need some tissue?

But, being who I am, I can't see your false teaching and just let it go. But, if you would just stop doing that and be done with this subject, I wouldn't try to bring it up again.

Chuckle.

But, as long as you keep misinterpreting scripture passage after scripture passage, I have to continue correcting your false interpretations because that's what I do.

And a terrible job you’re doing at that—all because of your misunderstanding of ‘ALL MEN.’ Not to mention those false age of accountability theories you keep clinging to.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL...God is painting a spiritual picture of nations between two people. Read again:

Rom 9:4-13
(4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
(5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
(6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
(8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
(10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(11) (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;)
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Sure, just ignore the passage Paul referenced in Romans 9:12 then (Genesis 25:21-23). Context clearly means nothing to you, as you prove over and over again.

Indeed! Of course, they are external people of the nation/kingdom of Israel. Esau's line represents unsaved people of the world (eg. kingdom of darkness - spiritual bondage) just as we all once were before being called.

LOL. External people? Is Matthew 12:30 in your Bible? Jesus said that anyone who is not with Him is against Him. Like dispensationalists, you try to create a third group of people. But, Jesus only knew of two groups of people. Everyone is either with Him or against Him. These "external people" you're talking about are against Him and are in the group of unsaved people. And not everyone in Esau's line was unsaved. So, you are just butchering scripture again.

Of course, the Scribes and Pharisees are God's people, but they are NOT SAVED. They are only external believers of the kingdom.

LOL. They are not God's people. Get a clue! Jesus called them hypocrites and vipers and said they were headed for hell. God's people are those who belong to Christ.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Didn't you read in Scripture where Christ said the kingdom was taken from them at the Cross?

Mat 21:42-45
(42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
(45) And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Do you receive this or are you in denial? Jewish people like chief priests and Pharisees were the BUILDERS of the congregation! They rejected Christ. The kingdom was taken from them for their unbelief. And the kingdom was given to the Holy Nation where GENTILES and JEWISH CHRISTIANS are also part of Jacob's line under Christ's everlasting which the seed be called! Its all in Scripture whether your doctrine likes it or not!

Yes, the kingdom was taken from them, so why do you act as if they are still part of the kingdom now? They absolutely are not. Ask God for wisdom, so you stop believing foolishness like this (James 1:5-7).

Not at all. The joke is on YOU because you do not get it. God's people or kingdom is made up of two group of people. It is about a covenant relationship! The Chosen Elect (remnant of the kingdom) and the unsaved professed believers Like Chief priests, Pharisees, scribes and all people deceived by them, as well as false prophets and christs and all people deceived by them in the New Testament congregation today!

Wow. I didn't know that you are a dispensationalist! This is what they believe. But, scripture is clear that God's people are only those who belong to Christ now. No unsaved people (professed believers or not) are God's people. That's ludicrous! Wake up.

Yes, I did say that, but the Holy Spirit told me to keep going to prove your doctrine wrong for the sake of readers here.

That wasn't the Holy Spirit, that was your pride not allowing you to be teachable and to accept the truth that I shared with you.

And a terrible job you’re doing at that—all because of your misunderstanding of ‘ALL MEN.’ Not to mention those false age of accountability theories you keep clinging to.

Just keep believing that God will send babies, toddlers, mentally ill people, etc. to hell if you insist on misrepresenting the character of God. You clearly don't understand what it means when scripture says "God is love" (1 John 4:8). You think He is hate since that's what it would be if He sent someone to hell for no reason as you believe.

Do you have any children? If so, you are comfortable with the fact that, if your doctrine was true, then maybe God did not choose them to have eternal life and instead plans to have them be eternally tormented even though there's nothing they could do about it? You're good with that?

It's too bad that you think God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked when scripture specifically says that He does not (Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11). Don't try to say that you don't believe He takes pleasure in the death of the wicked when you believe He is quite satisfied and content with leaving some (most?) people in their wickedness with no opportunity to have eternal life so that they will experience eternal torment instead.

 

[PinSeeker]

That's a lie.

I don't purposely tell untruths, Spiritual Israelite. Now, I could say what you say here is a lie, but I think you truly believe it, which just makes you, in this case, wrong. Either that or this is just another feeble effort to piss me off... <smile> Actually, 'wrong' is technically incorrect... you're just being... indignant. Which is a often just a defense mechanism... But very often, you avoid the points that I make... You do.

You think you're being clear, but you weren't being clear to me.

Fair enough. But at least much of the time I think that's been a you thing, and maybe not always avoidance or purposeful obtuseness, but...

I avoid NOTHING and you know that.

<chuckles>

This is a case of you just not wanting to clarify what you were trying to say.

Even though I have many times over, hmmmm... With innumerable Scripture references... and examples... regarding the many things we have talked about... despite your claims to the contrary.

My point was not that all who are spiritually sick, which is how Jesus defined sinners (Mark 2:16-17), end up acknowledging that they are sick and can't heal themselves.

Well I don't disagree with this... Those would be... non-Christians... all those still at enmity with God ~ in active opposition or hostility toward God ~ not born again of the Spirit and thus remaining... dead in their sin.

My point was...

I know what your point was. <smile>

I have never done that.

You have. You have denied, many times, that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again. And you're not the only one, if that makes you feel any better... <smile> But if you are now agreeing, then... good. <smile>

What made you decide to repeatedly lie all of a sudden?

I have told not one; see above.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Sure, just ignore the passage Paul referenced in Romans 9:12 then (Genesis 25:21-23). Context clearly means nothing to you, as you prove over and over again.

It’s clear you’re missing the context regarding adoption, the covenants, “not all Israel which are of Israel,” the children of the promise, and the purpose of election. All of these refer to God’s eternal plan. God chose the elder to serve the younger because He had chosen Jacob for the purpose of election from the beginning of time. This is not about the nation of Israel as a political entity — it’s about God’s sovereign choice in salvation history.

LOL. External people?

It’s evident you don’t grasp the covenant relationship and the long, repeated history of God’s own people turning against Him time and again. These are the external, corporate members of the kingdom—those who are part of the visible community, yet not truly of the faith.

Is Matthew 12:30 in your Bible? Jesus said that anyone who is not with Him is against Him.

So?

1Jn 2:18-19
(18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In this passage, God is speaking about those who were among us—people who claimed to be Christians—yet carried the spirit of antichrist. They were never truly part of Christ’s body. These are the external believers, present in the visible church but not born of God. Selah.

Like dispensationalists, you try to create a third group of people.
But, Jesus only knew of two groups of people. Everyone is either with Him or against Him. These "external people" you're talking about are against Him and are in the group of unsaved people. And not everyone in Esau's line was unsaved. So, you are just butchering scripture again.

Wrong. Scripture makes a clear distinction:

1. Professing Christians – the visible church; many are called but not truly saved.
2. Elect Christians – the true body of Christ; few are chosen.
3. The Unsaved outside God’s congregation – the Gentiles in unbelief.

Jesus’ own parables (e.g., wheat and tares, sheep and goats) show that within the visible community, there are both genuine believers and impostors. Denying this distinction is what truly butchers Scripture.

LOL. They are not God's people.

Really? Have you ever read the Scripture regarding "God's people"

Isa 1:2-4
(2) Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
(3) The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
(4) Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

This passage directly says that His people—Israel—were raised and cared for by Him, yet still turned away in rebellion.

Eze 2:3
(3) And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

Neh 9:26
(26) Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great provocations.

Psa 78:56
(56) Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:

Jer 2:11
(11) Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

Jer 2:13
(13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
In the New Testament....

Heb 10:30
(30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Obviously, God's judgment will come against those in the Christian assembly! Especially those who have willfully sin and rebel AFTER receiving the knowledge of the Truth.

Didn't you realize that God must just His House first?

1Pe 4:17
(17) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

1 Peter 4:17 says that judgment begins at the house of God. Why? Because within His own house there are unsaved, external people—those who are part of the visible church but not truly His. This is where false prophets and false christs operate. Selah. Yes, there are external believers within His Church.

Get a clue! Jesus called them hypocrites and vipers and said they were headed for hell.

LOL. Exactly! They’re professing believers in name only—hypocrites who wear a religious mask. They are the false prophets and false christs, along with all those deceived by them. Hello? That’s precisely why Jesus condemned them.

God's people are those who belong to Christ.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Duh. Of course, we are His children—the ones truly chosen by Christ through faith. But don’t pretend all who claim to be God’s people are saved. There have always been two groups within His congregation—true believers and mere professors. That’s been clear since the Old Testament. Wake up.

Yes, the kingdom was taken from them, so why do you act as if they are still part of the kingdom now?

Yes, they were removed! You’re completely missing the point. God stripped the scribes and Pharisees of their authority and kingdom status—cutting them off from His kingdom entirely. That’s exactly how the spirit of Satan was cast out.


Now, salvation and kingdom authority rest solely with the New Testament congregation—the church Christ established. While many are called, only a remnant are truly saved. Among them are external believers who infiltrate and work within the Elect until the end, when they will face judgment—just as Christ judged the Old Testament congregation.


Selah.

They absolutely are not. Ask God for wisdom, so you stop believing foolishness like this (James 1:5-7).

Actually, you’re the one who desperately needs to read James 1:5-7—clearly, you don’t understand how the covenant relationship works in God’s Kingdom. But don’t worry, I’m already miles ahead of you on this. Try catching up sometime.

Wow. I didn't know that you are a dispensationalist! This is what they believe.

Huh? And what exactly does that have to do with dispensationalism? Sounds like just another baseless label tossed out without understanding.

But, scripture is clear that God's people are only those who belong to Christ now.

Of course, you’ve misunderstood. When you say “God’s people,” you’re assuming it only means those who are saved and chosen—but Scripture shows there’s more nuance than that.

No unsaved people (professed believers or not) are God's people. That's ludicrous! Wake up.

No unsaved people—professed believers or not—are truly God’s people? That’s a naïve oversimplification. I’ve already shown you the verses that prove otherwise. You seriously need to wake up and smell some discerning coffee!

That wasn't the Holy Spirit, that was your pride not allowing you to be teachable and to accept the truth that I shared with you.

That wasn’t the Holy Spirit speaking—it was your pride blocking you from being teachable and accepting the truth I shared.


The Lord judges, and I’m perfectly comfortable leaving it in His hands.

Just keep believing that God will send babies, toddlers, mentally ill people, etc. to hell if you insist on misrepresenting the character of God.

Educate yourself