Expert: Marvin Howard - 1/14/2006

Question
I need to know how to answer those who say God hated Esau before Esau was born so God can hate us before we are born and has determined before we are born whether we will be saved or not.

Whenever I find scriptures which I think I can use, such as Titus 2:11, they are scriptures that can be answered with, "They are just talking about the ones God had decided to save.

Thank you for any help you can give me so I can teach these people.  

Answer
Hi!

I will do my best to answer this for you. I don't see that God hated Esau before he was born. If I am missing that scripture, please let me know.

I do find that He hated him; but everything I find on the subject is after the fact where Esau hated God so much that He sold his Abrahamic birthright (which came through Isaac). His descendants (in his name) tried to claim the land back, and God promised to tear down whatever was built. What was hated was the attempted usurping of God's authority and promise: not the people themselves. Below are the only two passages where God hated Esau.

Malachi 1:3-7, "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible."

Romans 9:13-14, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."

Esau's descendants were so blind to the ways of God, they didn't even see where they could possibly be wrong: much like denominationalism today. However, we must finish the context of Romans to get a full handle on God's wrath towards Esau. Even though God hated Esau, it is shown to be only temporary as all Gentiles would be accepted when Israel rejected God (by rejecting Jesus) according to the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, thus becoming the accepted people in Israel's place unless and until Israel as a whole accepts Jesus (which is possible, but not likely). Until then, Israel has despised its birthright, and they are now condemned from the land by God.

Romans 9:15-33, "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. 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. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 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? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 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. 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: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Only a remnant of Israel would remain acceptable to God; a very small portion. These are the Israeli Christians.

Now, to specifically answer the false doctrine of predestination (Calvinism), I will leave you with a sermon I preached on the the subject of the body of doctrine known as T.U.L.I.P. To view it with all of my emphasis, you may go here:

http://www.geocities.com/braswellcoc1/archive9.html

__________________________________________

The Doctrines Of Man vs. The Doctrine Of God


Part VI: T.U.L.I.P. (Is This A Flower From God? Or, Is It A Thorn From Satan? We Will Let God's Word Decide!)


Many different teachings exist on many different Bible subjects in the world. The aim of this series is to look at various doctrines, and decide whether they be from God or man. Once again, as always, I am a man and fallible. Check scripture with me for yourself to see if these things are so. This is the seventh sermon in this series.

Please note, at this time, I suspend judgment on this doctrine. I ask you to do the same, with an open mind and honest heart. Until we look at the scriptures, these are quotes from other sources. Here is the doctrinal outline, found in each and every reference source you care to check (it doesn't matter which, as I have found all to be in basic agreement). After the doctrine and the following explanation, I will go to the scriptures to show what God says of this teaching.



THE CALVINISTIC "TULIP"

TULIP is the acronym for the basic ideas of classical Calvinism.

(The simplistic version)

T -- total depravity.

U -- unconditional election.

L -- limited atonement.

I -- irresistible grace.

P -- perseverence of the saints.

(The TULIP in full bloom)

TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR INABILITY (= "T" of TULIP)

The first point asserts that the entire or TOTAL human being--body and soul, intellect and will, etc.--is fallen and that everyone is born spiritually dead, helpless, and passive; indeed, everyone is worse than volitionally dead or unable to desire spiritual good but is actually enslaved to sin, positively and actively hostile to the things of the Spirit.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (= "U" of TULIP)

According to this point, God predestines or chooses to soften the hard, sin-enslaved hearts of certain fallen individuals and liberate them from their death not because of any merit they have but despite their demerits--i.e., He ELECTS to change their hearts (and thereby join them to Christ and His saving work) DESPITE the fact that they hate God and oppose Him and have hard hearts, not soft hearts, and have sin-enslaved wills, not free wills. Thus, believers have no reason to boast about themselves or their own actions: the only thing that differentiates them from Judas, Esau, or others who never respond in faith is that God gave them grace that He withheld from such reprobates.

LIMITED ATONEMENT or Particular Redemption (= "L" of TULIP)

This point says that while Christ's blood--indeed, His entire life, death, and resurrection--is infinitely INTENSIVE in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely EXTENSIVE and is thus limited, not universal, in the extent of its application; for while everyone CONDITIONALLY or "provisionally" shares in Christ's life, death, and resurrection (thus, if everyone believed, everyone would be joined or married to Christ), only members of Christ's body or bride or flock (ELECT believers) actually share in His blood.

IRRESISTIBLE (SUFFICIENT) GRACE (= "I" of TULIP)

This is virtually a synonym for Luther's slogan "grace alone" (sola gratia) and is logically implied by points "T" and "U" above. It teaches that God's INWARD CALL is perfectly EFFECTUAL or SUFFICIENT--a hard, fleshly, sinful heart need not add anything to God's grace, such as "co-operation," for this special call or grace is invincible, overpowering all hatred and melting all opposition. Here Calvinists distinguish God's inward, effectual call--i.e., IRRESISTIBLE GRACE or sufficient, effective grace--from His outward call, which is simply His commandments written on tablets of stone. The latter is eminently resistible, insufficient, and ineffective to give life to a dead soul or liberate a sin-enslaved heart.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS or Eternal Security (= "P" of TULIP)

This is the idea that " . . . He who began a good work in you will perfect it . . " i.e., the idea that whenever God creates faith in our hearts and thereby joins us to Christ and His saving work, He will sustain that faith, that saving relationship with Christ, causing us, by His grace, to persevere in faith.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR INABILITY (= "T" of TULIP)

NOW HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD as recorded in Deuteronomy 24:16 and II Kings 14:6!

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

"But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Since infants can do no wrong, for them to be born depraved or lost, it would be inherited sin making them lost. In other words, for them to be lost, they would be put to the second death, by God, for their father's sins. This point of the doctrine is in direct defiance of scripture.

Here is an interesting, additional observation. The teaching is that sin is inherited. This is traced all the way to Adam. To prove the falsehood, it is neglected that for sin to be necessarily inherited, Adam must then have inherited his sin from his (Greek) paeter, (English) father (both of these mean creator), which is none other than the Almighty! If the doctrine is true, God had sin which Adam inherited from Him. The logic is faulty to the nth degree, and not very well thought out from the beginning.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (= "U" of TULIP)

NOW HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD as recorded in II Peter 1:10!

"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" (emphasis mine, MRH)

"If" is a conditional word. The election, therefore, is conditional (at least) on the Christian doing things listed in previous verses. Is our election conditional (as per the Word of God), or unconditional (per the word of Calvin)? Of course, God's Word is true, and every man a liar. Since Calvin chose to contradict God, Calvin is proven to be a liar, and this point of his doctrine is false.

LIMITED ATONEMENT or Particular Redemption (= "L" of TULIP)

"Christ's blood...is infinitely INTENSIVE in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely EXTENSIVE and is thus limited, not universal, in the extent of its application;..."

NOW HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD as recorded in John 3:16-17!

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (emphasis mine, MRH)

Once again, the word "world" is the Greek kosmos {kos'-mos}, and carries not only the definition of the universe, but also the inhabitants of the entire earth. While it is true that not everyone will be saved; not even the majority will be saved (Matthew 7:14), the fault lies not with the power of the blood of Christ! The fault lies with man. Calvin here at least tried to express a valid concept, but he greatly perverted scripture, using an invalid means (limiting diety) to attempt to explain a truth. However, as Satan would love to have us believe there will be some who Christ's blood will be unable to save, this explanation also came from Satan. No one must ever be led to believe they are hopeless, or they will have justification, from a "church," to continue doing evil. This will without fail result in the loss of that soul, and it becomes the responsibility of that portion of the religious world, for making him believe he could not be saved in the first place.

IRRESISTIBLE (SUFFICIENT) GRACE (= "I" of TULIP)

"This is virtually a synonym for Luther's slogan "grace alone" (sola gratia) and is logically implied by points "T" and "U" above."

NOW HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD as recorded in Ephesians 2:8!

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:"

If salvation is by grace, and through faith, it cannot be by grace alone. This portion of Luther's doctrine, borrowed by Calvin, is unscriptural.

"Here Calvinists distinguish God's inward, effectual call--i.e., IRRESISTIBLE GRACE or sufficient, effective grace--from His outward call, which is simply His commandments written on tablets of stone."

We have already proven God does not speak to us through any method other than the scriptures in my third archived sermon. Calvin agrees this is resistable. But, since we are not given grace by any other means, grace is therefore resistable, and this point of the doctrine is also false. Also, if the "T" and "U" points above are false (proven), the logic leading to this point is faulty in the first place.

Also, for God to extend His grace to only a few, selected (read respected) persons, He would then be a respecter of persons. What say Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 on this matter?

It is quite plain to see, Calvin made a god after his image, rather than accepting God as He is; Calvin, and all those following him are therefore idolaters. They made (make) another god before Him!

"PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS or Eternal Security (= "P" of TULIP)"

This point of the doctrine is also referred to as, "Once saved, always saved."

NOW HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD as recorded in I Corinthians 9:27!

"But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (emphasis mine, MRH)

After Paul was saved, and a preacher of the gospel, he could still be castaway from God, or be lost. I would like to know what kind of egos this man (Calvin) and his blind followers have to believe they are in a better position than the great apostle, Paul! They may be unaware of this verse of scripture. However, once shown, to maintain the teaching is to demonstrate this inflated ego.

Also, as shown in our debunking of the "T" of the T.U.L.I.P., our election can be made sure. therefore, the opposite must also be true; our election may be unsure.

Each of the scriptures used here is plain. Proponents of this doctrine have been given many more ambiguous scriptures to prove their point. You cannot take a difficult passage of scripture and ascribe to it a meaning which would contradict plainer passages. Doing so teaches a different doctrine, and thus brings the teachers under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9.

The aforementioned "TULIP" was fashioned at the Synod of Dordt (Dordrecht) in the early 1600s only in REACTION to five assertions of the Arminians (the "Remonstrants" or Dutch "semi-Pelagian" protesters). One extreme was protested by going all the way to the other end of the spectrum. Neither is accurate. This happened about 1600 years too late to be true Christianity.

So, you tell me. We have examined the evidence. Did God give this doctrine, or did it come from another source? What said He?

God said to hear Jesus. Hear Him will you? Don't shut His words out at the behest of men like Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, Smith, Smyth, Rutherford, Lucado, and Spurgeon. Don't listen to the self-proclaimed "god-men". All popes claim to be Christ (God) on earth when they claim to be vicar (which only meant substitute or replacement when they first used the word). God spoke to you already. He isn't going to say more.

_______________________________________________________

Should you need any further information or clarification, or should you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
preacherman_1962@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962