Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Did Esau serve Jacob? Their descendants served the descendants of Israel. But I don't think any mention of Esau serving Jacob is found in scripture.
Apart from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, Esau did not personally serve Jacob that I can recall. But don't miss the fundamental point: In this passage Paul is arguing that God chooses some individuals & not others on no basis other than His own good pleasure (v. 18). Salvation is not on the basis of fleshly descent (vv. 6-7), but on the basis of God's choice (v. 11 - "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"). It is not obtained by the man who wills or runs, but by God's act of mercy (v. 16).
Furthermore, the election mentioned in these verses clearly refer to wordly tasks. Do you equate "serving" with damnation?
No, it does not clearly refer to "worldly tasks." The passage is part of a larger section spanning chapters 9-11, answering the question why the Jews, on the whole, have not accepted the gospel.
To build a theology around God's hate of individuals would require some very strong evidence, since God is love.
No one is building a theology around God's hate of individuals - what an invidious way to characterize what we have argued! So, besides the fact that Calvinism is predisposed toward force, passes the buck for our sins to God, and makes us incapable of rational thought, it is now built around God's hate of certain individuals! If you have come here to LEARN, Mike, you will cease to IMPUGN.
You do provide some verses from the OT that I'll have to look at, to be sure. As you keep repeating, we should look at CONTEXT. Psalm 5, for example, is - a psalm. It's not a clearly delineated treatise or argument on the nature of God. I think we should be careful about how David characterizes God, and not be too hasty to draw theological conclusions from a song.
Indeed, Mike, let us not be too hasty to conclude from Psalm 5 that:
-God takes no pleasure in wickedness;
-no evil dwells with God;
-the boastful shall not stand before God;
-God destroys liars;
-God will grant David entrance to God's house by God's abundant lovingkindness;
-God blesses & protects the righteous.
Let us be careful lest we attribute to God what the INSPIRED PSALMIST may have uttered too hastily concerning His nature!
Eph 1:4 is not talking about salvation, but being holy and blameless. The way I tell this, is that the verse says "holy and blameless" and it doesn't use the word "salvation." To make it say "salvation", you have to add something to the verse, I'm sure it's called CONTEXT. But as I look around at other verses, I don't see the word their, either. In which case, if you want to see salvation there, you have to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there.
So, if being made "holy & blameless" does not count for salvation, of what does salvation consist if not at least:
-adoption as sons through Jesus Christ (v. 5);
-redemption through His blood & the forgiveness of our trespasses (v. 7);
-obtaining an inheritance (v. 11);
-being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (v. 13)?
And the other side of the coin - damnation - isn't anywhere to be found at all. That's another meaning you have to put into the text to make it work there.
Of course that wouldn't be necessary, given the nature & purpose of what Paul is writing here. But it is the logical corollary: if some are chosen for salvation out of the midst of the children of wrath (2:3), others are left. And elsewhere Paul affirms that there are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22).
"The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4).
Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10.
I don't follow you here. All of these are translated "whosoever believes" or something like that. You can turn that into "believing ones" via the participle if you want, but none of them are translated "elect", as far as I can tell. So what is your issue here? I think I was asking if pisteuo is translated as elect in the Bible. I only looked at a few of them, so maybe I missed one, please let me know.
I did not say that
pisteuwn is translated "elect" in any of those passages. I was simply providing some passages where the "believing ones" must be understood, in context, as the "elect," as Pilgrim had previously argued. This is not to say that "believing ones" should be
translated as the "elect," since that is not the actual meaning of
pisteuwn; the word rather indicates something - belief - that is characteristic of the elect. Which is why I had, after providing those verses, gone on to say as follows:
Attempting to understand precisely who is meant by "believing ones," we must ask, "Who will believe?" And the answer to that is, partly, contained in Acts 13:48: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The ordination to eternal life precedes belief. True belief is the mark of the elect.
Is there some reason you failed to notice these further comments?
