• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Rom 9: Confirms free will of man

You did not exegete Ro 5:12-14 (three verses) in consistency with all its points as requested, from which we will then proceed.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
That one man was Adam. In his loins was his progeny....because of Adams sin men now die physically ....death is passed to all of Adams progeny in the sin nature which results in Adams progeny sinning.

13
for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law
Prior to the Lord presenting commandments sin was present in all men. Considering there were no commandments given until Moses's time that sin was not counted because those commandments were not given as of yet. But, there were other sins not mentioned in the commandments people would do.

14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
People died between Adam and Moses....those sinning didn't sin the way Adam did, that was by eating from the tree. They disobeyed in many other ways. Adam was a type of Christ as he represented all people. As Adam sinned we all sin, as Christ Jesus didn't in our glorified bodies we will not sin.

Your turn.
 
Was Christ Work alone sufficient to save the sinners He died for ? Or is something else needed ?
Yes not died for. Christ gave his eternal Spirit life for.

Living sacrifice

God cannot die
 
Yes not died for. Christ gave his eternal Spirit life for.

Living sacrifice

God cannot die
Huh ? I dont know what in the world you talking about. 1 Jn 3 12

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

You have gone from bad to worse !
 
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
That one man was Adam. In his loins was his progeny....because of Adams sin men now die physically ....death is passed to all of Adams progeny in the sin nature which results in Adams progeny sinning.
Thanks. . .the conumdrum here is
all sinned (Ro 5:12) between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and sin was not accounted to them (Ro 5:13).

Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20). We do not inherit Adam's sin.
We inherit only his fallen (sinful) nature.
Our death is caused by our own sin (Ro 6:23).
So what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and, therefore, no personal sin was counted against them?
It was Adam's sin imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17). . . . . .wait for it. . . . .which was the pattern for the one to come (Ro 5:14), Christ.
Pattern of what? The pattern for Christ's righteousness being imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

The imputation of Adam's sin is presented in Ro 5:17-19.
Ro 5:17 - by the trespass (sin) of one man, death reigned through that one man
Ro 5:18 - the result of one trespass was the condemnation for all men
Ro 5:19 - through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners (by imputation of the one man's sin to the many, Ro 5:14, 17),
just as (so also) through the obedience of one man the many are made righteous (by imputation of the one man's righteousness to the many).
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law
Prior to the Lord presenting commandments sin was present in all men. Considering there were no commandments given until Moses's time that sin was not counted because those commandments were not given as of yet. But, there were other sins not mentioned in the commandments people would do.

14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
People died between Adam and Moses....those sinning didn't sin the way Adam did, that was by eating from the tree. They disobeyed in many other ways. Adam was a type of Christ as he represented all people. As Adam sinned we all sin, as Christ Jesus didn't in our glorified bodies we will not sin.

Your turn.
 
Last edited:
Yes not died for. Christ gave his eternal Spirit life for.

Living sacrifice

God cannot die
Christ has two natures. . .human and divine, just as God is three distinct persons.

His human nature died, not his divine nature, which cannot die.
 
Christ has two natures. . .human and divine, just as God is three distinct persons.

His human nature died, not his divine nature, which cannot die.

People in trying to form a Trinity have tried to attribute nature to the Supernatural (no nature/ beginning ) God.

God has no beginning of days or end of life he remains without mother and father .
 
People in trying to form a Trinity have tried to attribute nature to the Supernatural (no nature/ beginning ) God.

God has no beginning of days or end of life he remains without mother and father .
"Nature" has more than one meaning. . .
 
Thanks. . .the conumdrum here is
all sinned (Ro 5:12) between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and sin was not accounted to them (Ro 5:13).

Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20). We do not inherit Adam's sin.
We inherit only his fallen (sinful) nature.
Our death is caused by our own sin (Ro 6:23).
So what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and, therefore, no personal sin was counted against them?
It was Adam's sin imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17). . . . . .wait for it. . . . .which was the pattern for the one to come (Ro 5:14), Christ.
Pattern of what? The pattern for Christ's righteousness being imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).
Romans 5:18-19 does not limit Christ's righteousness being imputed to "those of Christ". Rather it sets the pattern of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the very same ones to whom were imputed Adam's sin. It is important that you understand that. The "all men" in both cases of verse 18 are exactly the same persons and the "many" in verse 19 in both cases are again exactly the same persons.
The imputation of Adam's sin is presented in Ro 5:17-19.
Ro 5:17 - by the trespass (sin) of one man, death reigned through that one man
Ro 5:18 - the result of one trespass was the condemnation for all men
Ro 5:19 - through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners (by imputation of the one man's sin to the many, Ro 5:14, 17),
just as (so also) through the obedience of one man the many are made righteous (by imputation of the one man's righteousness to the many).
You have highlighted the first phrases of each of those verses. Yet it is the second phrase in each case that Paul intends as the point he is making:
Ro 5:17 - much more by the one man Jesus Christ, righteousness reigned in life
Ro 5:18 - one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Ro 5:19 - by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

That is the point that Paul is making. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is presented in Romans 5:17-19. So what is Paul saying? He is saying that instead of the condemnation of all men at birth due to Adam's disobedience, there is the righteousness of all men at birth due to Christ's obedience. All men are born righteous. What happens after that is on each of them. It is their own sins, not Adam's that condemn them. Paul takes that dilemma up beginning in Romans 5:20 and continuing on though the next several chapters.
 
Thanks. . .the conumdrum here is
all sinned (Ro 5:12) between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and sin was not accounted to them (Ro 5:13).

Sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20). We do not inherit Adam's sin.
We inherit only his fallen (sinful) nature.
Our death is caused by our own sin (Ro 6:23).
So what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against and, therefore, no personal sin was counted against them?
It was Adam's sin imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17). . . . . .wait for it. . . . .which was the pattern for the one to come (Ro 5:14), Christ.
Pattern of what? The pattern for Christ's righteousness being imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

The imputation of Adam's sin is presented in Ro 5:17-19.
Ro 5:17 - by the trespass (sin) of one man, death reigned through that one man
Ro 5:18 - the result of one trespass was the condemnation for all men
Ro 5:19 - through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners (by imputation of the one man's sin to the many, Ro 5:14, 17),
just as (so also) through the obedience of one man the many are made righteous (by imputation of the one man's righteousness to the many).
If you say so. Thanks for replying.
 
Romans 5:18-19 does not limit Christ's righteousness being imputed to "those of Christ". Rather it sets the pattern of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the very same ones to whom were imputed Adam's sin.
Not in the context of the rest of the NT; e.g., Jn 3:18.

Your grasp of the gospel is too weak for me to continue.
It is important that you understand that. The "all men" in both cases of verse 18 are exactly the same persons and the "many" in verse 19 in both cases are again exactly the same persons.

You have highlighted the first phrases of each of those verses. Yet it is the second phrase in each case that Paul intends as the point he is making:
Ro 5:17 - much more by the one man Jesus Christ, righteousness reigned in life
Ro 5:18 - one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Ro 5:19 - by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

That is the point that Paul is making. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is presented in Romans 5:17-19. So what is Paul saying? He is saying that instead of the condemnation of all men at birth due to Adam's disobedience, there is the righteousness of all men at birth due to Christ's obedience. All men are born righteous. What happens after that is on each of them. It is their own sins, not Adam's that condemn them. Paul takes that dilemma up beginning in Romans 5:20 and continuing on though the next several chapters.
 
Last edited:
Rather than Romans 9 confirming predeterminism, the Scripture rebukes it and confirms the free will of man created in God's image.
{edit}
“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

So then.​

These inspired words, so then, create a summarizing phrase drawing a conclusion (Ro 8:8; 14:12). The conclusion being drawn regards the purpose of God according to election found in 9:6-15. What we would expect the conclusion to be from God’s absolute dominion is the conclusion. There is no leap of logic here at all; Paul had stated and illustrated election, and now he proved it. Based on the fact of Israel (9:6b), illustration in two families (9:7-13), inspired narrative (9:11), and scriptural defense of the truth (9:14-15), the conclusion is obvious, profound, and final.

It is not of him that willeth.​

What is “it”? What conclusion does the context lead to? The mercy of God in the election of men.

The main lesson in the preceding context was God’s purpose in election, choosing Jacob (9:11). The contextual lesson that follows is God’s purpose to reject and harden Pharaoh (9:17-18). This verse (9:16) ascribes the issue to God’s mercy – His mercy to elect one over another.

God’s mercy in salvation, as in regeneration for example, excludes man’s will (John 1:13; 3:8).

Therefore, we conclude that the gift of eternal life is according to God’s will and not man’s will.

Nor of him that runneth.​

As in the previous clause, the issue at stake is God’s purpose to show mercy in the election of men. God’s mercy in salvation, as in regeneration for example, excludes man’s works for it (Titus 3:5). When illustrating God’s electing mercy, Paul denied any good or evil actions by the twins (9:11). Therefore, we conclude that the gift of eternal life is according to God’s will and not man’s actions.

But of God that sheweth mercy.​

As seen earlier in the chapter, the context dictates that salvation, not national favors, is by mercy. The personal aspect of God’s choices among men is further confirmed by example of Pharaoh next. Therefore, we conclude eternal life is an unconditional gift by the will of God through Jesus Christ, man's will does not have any part in salvation from sin and condemnation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The error is by people plucking certain Scriptures out of context, which changes the truth into a lie. Many do so as a novice mistake, and some do so willfully to confirm their own lies.
Like you are doing with Romans 9?
The context of Romans 9 is twofold: God has the right to choose and elect His people. And that right is exercised only after being created, not before.
Just the opposite of God's testimony as to the doctrine of election of grace.

Romans 9:11​

“(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;)

For the children being not yet born.​

Parenthetical insertions like this one may be left out initially to follow the main line of reasoning; but now we may deal with this wonderful explanation given by Paul of the nature of God’s choice. Rather than short quotations from the O.T., Paul gave an inspired explanation of personal election. Paul did not deal with nations or peoples, regardless of what Moses (Gen 25:19-23) or Malachi (Mal 1:1-5) were dealing with, for he specifically and clearly identified two definite children here. He argued for an election within Israel of children of God and vessels of mercy (Ro 9:6b,8,22-24).

Neither having done any good or evil.​

God’s elective choice was before good or bad works – thus it is clearly unconditional election.

Both boys were guilty of Adam’s sin and inheriting his fallen nature, but that is ignored here for their own sins: Paul’s argument is to prove that God’s elective purpose is unconditionally based on His own will (Rom 9:15-16) ~ and that before birth, before they had a chance to do good, or evil.

That the purpose of God.​

Election is according to God’s purpose, as are all His acts (Ac 15:18; Ro 8:28; Ep 1:11; 2nd Tim 1:9). The LORD made all things for Himself, and get this, even the wicked for the day of evil (Pr 16:4).

According to election.​

Election is a choice, the meaning of the word ~ God’s purpose included the election of one twin and rejection of the other.

What election? To be a vessel of mercy.

Might stand.​

There is no way around this text in its plain and extreme description of God’s sovereign will. There is no person or power in heaven, earth, or hell that can hinder God’s sovereign choices. It is the zeal of the Lord of hosts that will perform all His purposes for every individual person. The basis of everything that happens – those events that stand – are by God’s choice and purpose.

Not of works.​

God’s election, or choice, is not because of man’s works, but by His grace (Rom 11:6; 2nd Tim 1:9). God’s elective choice was before good or bad works – thus it is clearly unconditional election. God does not elect those who choose Him and obedience, or they elect God rather than He them!

But of him that calleth.​

The whole matter of individual and personal salvation as the children of God depends and turns on the sovereign will of the one and only sovereign God – the Potter with full power over the clay. There is no other will or effort involved in His compassion and mercy, as stated (Romans 9:15-16).
 
If you can show any error in the argument for freewill from the Bible, then I'd be glad to see it.
No, you wouldn't. Dozens of threads have provided you with this information. Your mind is decided and nothing anyone posts will change it, not matter how explicit the scripture. If you wish to post a case for synergism then do so but do not tell us your mind is open to alternatives. That's disingenuous.
 
And the election was not made until after Rebecca's prayer of intercession, due to the struggling of her twins in the womb.

By context of all Scripture together, we see that the election of God is not made before creation and conception, but only afterward, as well as only after prayer of intercession is made to God.
"By context of all Scripture together"~will show your corruption of them to support your own doctrine. You show you biased spirit against God's word, by saying what you did which is just the opposite of what they (scriptures) are saying. And, we will add, you vainly try to bring in Rebecca's prayer as to seemly support your teaching, when in fact it exposes your lies. God's election was not after, or certain not because of Rebecca's prayer, but Rebecca's inquiring was due to the struggle going on in her womb~she desired God to tell her why was it thus happening.

The LORD told her why it was happening in no uncertain words. Listen to Paul:

Romans 9:12~“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”​

Which Paul intrepreted to mean:

Romans 9:13​

“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

As it is written.​

Paul identified the basis, origin, or source of God’s choice of Jacob over his older twin brother. This quotation is taken from Malachi 1:1-5, where nations are considered, but the cause is the key. No doubt the issue of Malachi’s words are a rebuke for Israel not appreciating national favor. However, the basis or source of this national preference was God’s personal election of men. We do not interpret O.T. quotations in the N.T. by their O.T. context, but rather by their N.T. application, where the inspired writer gives us the more spiritual and relevant interpretation.

Jacob have I loved.​

God spoke in Malachi 1:1-5, and this is a very personal statement, like God to Pharaoh (Rom 9:17). This fact is far more staggering and astonishing than hatred of Esau, for how could He love Jacob?

But Esau have I hated.​

Here we introduce the hatred of God, which is even less known and less popular than reprobation. Most reject God’s hatred for Esau or for human rebels due to their perverse, self-loving hearts. Most reject God’s hatred for Esau or for human rebels due to their gross ignorance of scripture. While many are shocked and angered by God hating anyone, we are amazed He loved anyone.

God’s hatred of sinners is an expressly declared and revealed fact about God found in the Bible.

The feminine concept that God hates the sin but loves the sinner is not found in the Bible at all. The Bible declares that God hates sinners (Psalm 5:4-6; 11:4-7; Prov 6:16-19), but these verses are ignored, glossed over, or rejected by those who think John 3:16 is the extent of revelation. God is holy, and He must hate sin and sinners, no matter how good and loving – this is an easy concept (Hab 1:13; Ps 22:1-3; 34:16; Prov 3:32; 11:20; 16:5; 17:15; Isaiah 6:1-5; Rev 21:27); the only way He can love sinners is to choose them in Christ Jesus, which exalts our salvation.

God can and does love only holy objects, so sinners must be in Christ Jesus to be holy and without blame, where He chose them before the foundation of the world (Hab 1:13; Eph 1:4).

 
Last edited:
Nothing is said about when and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, especially not before creation. God's election was made while in the womb. Scripture does not delcare His love for Jacob and hate for Esau at that time.
Ghada, I could take almost every sentence of yours and show how you corrupt the word of God, maybe not purposely, (God knows) nevertheless, you you still do, and that's wicked and dangerous, for you will give an account unto its Author. It would be better for you not to teach, until you know you are handling the word of God in all sincerity before God.
Nothing is said about when and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, especially not before creation.
Consider Romans 9:23~"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

And.​

This coordinating conjunction is important, as it presents the human vessels of honour from 9:21. Before you can appreciate them, you must be convinced and familiar with reprobation (9:21-22). It was God the Holy Spirit’s choice to first declare God’s will in reprobating some men (9:22). With His will to show His wrath and power known, He declared His will to show His glory. God’s will is two-sided when creating men ~ some for judgment, some for mercy and compassion.

The glory of God, fairly representing all aspects of His nature, requires judgment and salvation. The will of God is to save the vessels of mercy, as in 9:15-16, which the apostle now declares.

That he might make known.​

Jehovah is infinitely perfect from eternity, as proven by His name, I AM THAT I AM (Ex 3:6). But His perfections bring Him no glory, honor, or praise without creatures to provide it for Him. For His own glory and pleasure, He created angels and men and decreed reprobation and salvation, toward each.

We gather this from verses declaring the purpose for God creating (Proverbs 16:4; Rev 4:11).
  1. We see this in individual examples like Pharaoh in the preceding context (Ex 9:16; Rom 9:17).
  2. We see this in individual examples like Saul of Tarsus, who was a pattern for us (I Tim 1:16).
  3. We see this as a stated purpose of redemption (Ephesians 1:6,12; II Thess 1:10-12; 2:13).
  4. We see this in a stated purpose of redemption for the angels (Ep 3:10; I Pet 1:12; Rev 5:11-12).
  5. We see this in what God does during eternity to display His rich kindness (Ephesians 2:7)
  6. We see this in what is stated about the reprobates in 9:22 and the redeemed here in 9:23.
  7. We see this in the purpose for all creatures (Ps 96:11-13; 148:1-13; Rev 5:13; Rom 11:36).

The riches of his glory.​

Salvation is for God to display His grace in saving wicked and rebel men from their deserved condemnation to an eternal inheritance of heaven’s riches, being joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. Salvation shows God’s grace, wisdom, and power in desiring, designing, and decreeing to save. Salvation allows God to pour eternal riches on adopted children that had and deserved nothing.

The riches of His glory are then the inclusion of Gentiles into the family of God (Ep 3:8; Col 1:27). The riches of His glory are then the intangible riches of God’s presence (Eph 3:16; II Thess 2:14).

On the vessels of mercy.​

The foundation has already been laid so that these words are easy to read and fully understand. From the metaphorical language of 9:20-21, God has vessels of dishonor and honor (9:22-23). Paul had already declared clearly that God chooses mercy on whom He will (9:15-16,18).

Our salvation is by the mercy of God – undeserved pardon (Tit 3:5; I Pet 1:3; Ps 130:7; Mic 7:18).

Which he had afore prepared unto glory.

Ghada, Contrary to what you said above ~ where you said: "Nothing is said about when and how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, especially not before creation."

God afore and decreed and appointed the elect to something very different from the wicked before the foundation of the world. (2nd Tim. 1:9; I Thess 5:9).

This is an eternal purpose that God had ~ afore prepared ~ not a result of man’s actions in time. Salvation, like reprobation in 9:22, is based on God’s determinate counsel before time. The plan and promise of salvation were before the world began (Eph 1:4; II Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2). God’s works in time are the result of His determinate counsel in eternity (Acts 4:28; 15:18). Some men, from the one lump of humanity, are fitted for damnation or prepared for glory! Even heaven itself is described as having been prepared for them from eternity (Matt 25:34).
 
Last edited:
A problem in any discussion about Romans 9 is that Calvinists infuse into the discussion of God's choices in chapter 9 their own concept of election and reprobation which is essentially all about God's assignment to heaven or hell. But most of Romans 9 is really not about that at all. The theme of the whole chapter is that Paul's brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh, were God's chosen people. But they were chosen for a purpose here on earth completely independent of their salvatory status. The point here is that God is not obligated to save any of Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh because they were a chosen people. They were chosen for a purpose, not for salvation. That purpose is highlighted in verses 4 and 5. And even though they served that purpose, that does not mean that God is obligation to save them. Paul is declaring that God's using anyone for any purpose whatever, has nothing do to with whether or not they end up being saved. They were elected, chosen, to serve, not to be saved. They were elected for service not for salvation.

And it is with respect to that service, that mercy and compassion is meted out. The examples of Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh are examples of God's using them here in this life, independent of whether God ended up saving any of them. He is free to use any and all in any way he wants. The clay that is being molded by the potter is being molded for a use in this life. The molding of the clay has nothing whatsoever to do with any use in the next life. Hs wrath and His power (vv. 22, 23) are not shown by any He saves, since that is not an exhibited act of God. What is exhibited, what can be seen, is how God has used any or all to accomplish what He wants.

When we see what God can do in the here and now in this life, we can then trust in Him to do as He promises for the any and all in the next life, even those promises for all those who were not Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, i.e., the Gentiles.

The honorable use and the dishonorable use of the clay in verse 21 has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not that clay was saved or condemned.

Paul closes out the chapter by declaring that it is not about being chosen for service; rather, it is about faith (v.32). And the chapter says nothing about being chosen for faith, only chosen for service.
 
The rejection of Esau from God Himself was by his works, not by his creation. The same for the LORD casting down Lucifer, and driving out Adam by unrepented transgression.

And so, election is after creation, and judgment is by works.

The only 'pre' election and choosing of God, is from the womb before any works are done in life. And even in that case, there is still a struggling between the twins, followed by the mother's intercession made for them to God.
Continuing on through the OP, we now come to the end of the Op, the next post we shall consider later today, or maybe tomorrow since we do not celebrate Christmas, neither do we judge those that do ~ to me it is a liberty, which we chose not to do.

You are one confused person, which is to be expected, once a person refuse to accept God's testimony of the truth, which all who hate and reject unconditional election by free grace are guilty of. One more, before moving on:

Romans 9:11​

“(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;)

In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, it might still be said, that as the latter, as soon as he came to years, gave evidence of a wicked disposition, this was a sufficient reason for preferring Isaac, as you believe. But here, in a parenthesis the Apostle shows that the preference was given to Jacob independently of all ground of merit, because it was made before the children were capable of doing either good or evil. This was done for the very purpose of taking away all pretense for merit as a ground of preference. Had the preference been given to Jacob when he had grown up to maturity, there would have been no more real ground for ascribing it to anything good in him; yet that use would have been made of it by the perverse ingenuity of man. But God made the preference before the children were born.

“That the purpose of God according to election might stand” — This was the very end and intention of the early indication of the will of God to Rebecca, the mother of the two children. It was hereby clearly established that, in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, God had respect to nothing but His own purpose. Than this what can more strongly declare His own eternal purpose to be the ground of all His favor to man?

Not of works but of Him that calleth” — Expressions indicating God’s sovereignty in this matter are heaped upon one another, because it is a thing so offensive to the human mind. Yet, after all the Apostle’s precaution, the perverseness of men still finds ground of boasting on account of works. Though the children had done neither good nor evil, yet God, it is supposed, might foresee that Jacob would be a godly man, and Esau wicked. But had not God made a difference between Jacob and Esau, Jacob would have been no better than his brother. Were not men blinded by opposition to this part of the will of God, would they not perceive that a preference on account of foreseen good works is a preference on account of works, and therefore expressly contrary to the assertion of the Apostle — Not of works, but of Him that calleth? The whole ground of preference is in Him that calleth, or chooseth, not in him that is called.

‘Paul,’ says Calvin, ‘had hitherto merely observed, in a few words, the difference between the carnal sons of Abraham; namely, though all by circumcision were made partakers of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not equally efficacious in all, and the sons of the promise enjoy the blessings of the Most High. He now plainly refers the whole cause to the gratuitous election of God, which in no respects depends on men, so that nothing can be traced in the salvation of believers higher than the goodness of God; nothing in the destruction of the reprobate can be discovered higher than the just severity of the Sovereign of the world.

You said:

The same for the LORD casting down Lucifer
God never provided nor even gave a thought toward their repentance, he left them as reprobates to be destroyed. His election preserved some from fallen, or else, they would have. This is one reason no doubt Satan hates unconditional election, he was left out.

1st Timothy 5:21​

“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

John Gill wrote: "The angels of Jesus Christ, being made by him, and being ministers to him, and for him; and also "elect", because chosen to stand in that integrity and holiness, in which they were created; and to enjoy everlasting glory and happiness, while others of the same species were passed by and left to fall from their first estate, and appointed to everlasting wrath and damnation: so that it may be observed that God's election takes place in angels as well as in men; and which flows from the sovereign will and pleasure of God; and was made in Christ, who is their head, and by whom they are confirmed in their happy state; and in which they must be considered in the pure mass, since they never fell."
 
“That the purpose of God according to election might stand” — This was the very end and intention of the early indication of the will of God to Rebecca, the mother of the two children. It was hereby clearly established that, in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, God had respect to nothing but His own purpose. Than this what can more strongly declare His own eternal purpose to be the ground of all His favor to man?
You have interjected, erroneously, that the election here is election to salvation. It is simply election to service.
 
Back
Top