« ‘We’re the Lord’s elected few, let all the rest be damned’ | Main | James White and Historical Hooey (Part 1) »

2013.12.30

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

peter lumpkins

Eric, et al

Please be patient for this will take a minute. When my first book was published in 2009, it went through several edits and "last looks" before I turned in the manuscript. Then, it went through three different editors. I finally received what was actually going to the printer for one final glance with the understanding that absolutely nothing whatsoever could be changed unless factually oriented. In other words, I couldn't say to them, "Oh, I see where on page six, I made this statement. I'd like to rearrange the sentence to say it like this. I think it flows better." No. I had no liberty to do that since we were well beyond that stage in the process.

I did find one place in the manuscript where I insisted it must be changed. In the early part of the book I spoke a bit about my previous life before faith, how I came to Christ, my change of life after coming to Christ, my call to ministry, etc. Well, as a surprise to me, in the autobiographical section I had transposed the date of the when and how of coming to Christ with the date of my call to ministry and first sermon I preached on New Year's Eve, 1978 at the Neely's Bend Baptist Church in Madison Tennessee. How I missed that after scouring over it time and time again I can offer no explanation. None. But there it was making the timeline in my spiritual journey completely confusing. I was  called to the ministry and preaching before I even came to Christ.

Now, add to the above, I only record in the book the details about my coming to Christ in February, 1977 (corrected date!). I do not mention an incident which took place the summer of the former year when a man at the YMCA--a man only whom Heaven itself will reveal to me and I long for that day be assured!--stood and spoke with me about Christ and I almost...<i>almost</i> followed Him but instead turned and walked away. As I look back on my spiritual journal, that nameless face I recall played as much or more a role in fact as God's instrument to bring me to Jesus than the circumstances in Feb. the next year.

Now here's my point. Had I not caught the obvious discrepancy in my spiritual timeline, using the rules of interpretation Caner's fiercest critics, I would today be a published liar. I lied. My testimony contradicts itself. My testimony doesn't add up.

And, to complicate it more, had I spoken somewhere at a meeting and talked about coming to Christ but this time suggesting a nameless face stood in the YMCA and shared the gospel with me one summer ultimately leading to my coming to Jesus, what would happen then? Critics could claim,
"Well is Lumpkins even saved? In his book, Lumpkins says he came to Christ in the fall of 1978 but get this, he started preaching in Feb 1977!   Now we hear Lumpkins saying on tape he comes to Christ in the summer of 1976 at the YMCA. What's going on? He must be hiding something. He's a liar and fraud since his testimony doesn't pass muster."

Had my book been published just as it was--and frankly, I don't even know how or why I actually caught the error since I can't fathom making such a careless error about something so close to me--my so-called lies would be in print. And, my spoken words uploaded on youtube would be even further confirmation I was a deceiver because I changed my story about how I came to Christ.

It frightens me to no end to think about it. What if my book had been published as it was? And here's the kicker if the book had been printed with the error: while I'd have to admit on one hand what would have been in the book would have been a falsehood, I would not ever, in a thousand lifetimes concede it was lying--intentional deception. Period. Never. And, make no mistake. Had there been such a grievous error, many misguided men and women today would be bellowing out now about the deception surrounding my testimony (for the record, they do so anyway but not because of a proposed discrepancy in my testimony).

The circumstances surrounding Ergun Caner are very similar to the above but on a grander scale. But just because we discern conflict we logically cannot and morally ought not jump to the non sequitur conclusion that intentional deception necessarily exists. Might we legitimately raise questions? Of course. Just like anyone should have questioned the timeline in my book had it been published. But surely not publicly pronounce me a liar and deceiver because I inadvertently transposed dates. Nor because I speak of another important factor in my coming to Christ in a sermon that I didn’t record in the book. To have jumped to the conclusion that I’m automatically a deceiver would have been gross, moral irresponsibility.

Even so, raising questions is not what is or has been taking place with Ergun Caner. He and his wife and kids have been thoroughly tortured from cyber stalkers fueled by James White, et al who won't quit. Caner’s son gets emails from them saying they are praying for him because they understand how hard it must be to have an unrepentant for a dad. His wife cannot check facebook without seeing this crap staring at her every day. I honestly don't know how he psychologically endures it. No one--guilty or not guilty--should have to endure that type of hateful, sinful, godless behavior from any community much less from a community which boasts "We just want to stand for God's righteousness!" Sickening beyond words.

My little granddaughter is in Kindergarten. She’s learning arithmetic. I asked her, “What’s 2+1?” She said “free.” I said, “Yeah! Very good! What’s 2+2?” She said “four.” “Great!” Then she wanted me to ask one more. “OK. Uhhh. What’s 2+2?” She said “Ummm. Five!” Must you conclude she spoke an undeniable falsehood? Yes. May you morally condemn her an intentional deceiver? Only at your own peril if you or anyone else is within an arm’s length’s of me. This is why I keep singing this same song: one cannot draw incorrigible conclusions from unnecessary inferences. We should not do this when interpreting documents. And we must avoid this when interpreting somebody’s life. Especially unequivocally pronouncing somebody a moral fraud based upon disputable claims from incomplete records. 

One final word on your final paragraph: "I would accept Dr. Caner's apology…  if he didn't to this day claim that he has been completely vindicated; that he did no wrong and that the videos of his words are fake and doctored. On the one hand, you guys claim he has apologized yet on another claim that his misstatements and exaggerations have biblical precedent.” You’re misunderstanding Caner. He’s already conceded there were conflicts in his words. That’s a matter of public record. Also a matter of public record is his formal apology for those conflicts including wrong dates, names, and conflated statements which caused confusion. What more must he do here? According to your own words, Eric, you said you’d drop it. Well he did apologize! What you’re confusing with Caner saying he was vindicated is, Caner’s vindication contra White’s et al claim he is a fake, a phony, a charlatan, that he made his life up, that he created a fictitious character all to catapult his career. In short, White claims Caner is a genuine sham, a theological huckster unworthy to be in Christian ministry and may not even be saved.

Thus, while Caner humbled himself, admitted pulpit errors, etc. he’s not about to confess to White’s unfair, ungodly claim that Ergun Caner made his life up for fame. I don’t blame him. Make no mistake. This is what James White and crew are after. But they won’t get that anymore than someone would get out of me a confession that, had my book been published with errors, I lied in the book. And, Caner has been vindicated on three separate occasions by three unconnected groups of people who scrutinized him.

First, LU thoroughly vetted the claims made against him by hiring an independent professional investigation firm which exhaustively checked his background and examined every claim made against him by James White, Mohamed Khan and Jason Smathers (any other claims against Caner really are secondary. These there are the sources even for today. Same stuff being cited). In every incident, the investigators found that while conflicts of dates, names, places, etc were present, nothing they discovered in their exhaustive search through records, certificates, passports, residences, personal testimonies, friends, acquaintances, churches, schools, etc etc led them to conclude Caner intentionally falsified his life or created a fictitious character. Nothing. They vindicated Caner’s life against those who knew he’d faked it. That’s what Caner’s talking about when he talks about being vindicated. And those who keep purposely ignoring this distinction are dishonestly criticizing him.

Second and third, Caner was vindicated by Arlington and most recently Brewton-Parker. They concluded similarly as did the first investigators. While Caner did make confusing mistakes and pulpit errors, etc etc, nothing amounted to the necessary conclusion that Dr. Caner was a deceiver like critics claimed. They have the same stuff you see and the same stuff the original investigators saw, and coupling that with personal response in sit-down interviews fully vindicated Dr. Caner and his life’s work as sound.

It’s easy to sit back and judge a committee as not doing its work. I’ve raised my own questions about some trustee bodies. On the other hand, this is not one committee but three independent committees who have no strings to each other. It’s much more difficult to see three turning their heads concerning necessary conclusions.        

We have no moral right as believers to godlessly treat one another as White and crew are treating Ergun Caner. Know I’m perfectly willing to stand before Almighty God with the decisions I’ve made and actions I’ve performed concerning Ergun Caner. I only hope that those who publicly pronounce others impostors and frauds based on unnecessary inferences from incomplete evidence are just as prepared. God may judge between us. In the meantime I will continue to publicly call to account those who despicably harass other believers like James White and company harass other believers.

If what I’ve shared above has been helpful I’m glad. If it has affected any one’s judgment in no way particularly, including yours, Eric, so be it. I leave it there. I can offer nothing else. I leave you with your judgment. 

Lord bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

All,

In the last comment, I inadvertently posted all my previous comments into the one comment box. If you received the comment via email, I'm sure your eyes couldn't believe how log my comment was! Well, it's long but not that long! Sorry. It's fixed now...

peter lumpkins

All,

I think I've been more than fair on this thread. Many have queried their questions or stated their conclusions standing on neutral ground, skeptical ground, condemning ground, and supporting grounds concerning Ergun Caner. I think that's all any could hope for.

On the other hand, so far as I am concerned, there is only one moral position believers can take when it comes to the godless, sinful behavior of internet personalities (many of whom are anonymous scumbags)--professing Christians or not--who harass, threaten, swarm, berate, and stalk any person-guilty or not...Christian or not--with ceaseless attacks, deplorable judgments, unequivocal condemnations all in the name of righteousness: sin. Period. No where in God's Word are Christians commanded or allowed to treat other human beings like this. Thus, whether you think Dr. Caner has been straightforward or not is actually moot presently. Ultimately none of us are responsible. There comes a time when we commend a person or an issue into the hands of our loving God and move on.

Yet every single one of us are and will be held responsible to our Lord for the way we treat people whether they are guilty or innocent. Hence, I'm begging believers to shun any participation with those who continue to unmercifully make this an internet bloodbath against a man and his family. It is ungodly and serves the Lord Jesus Christ nor His Kingdom in no positive way. Hold your position. Keep your conclusions. But please stop participating and/or encouraging men like James White, J.D.Hall, Thom Rich, Jason Smathers, Mohammed Khan, et al to keep pressure on Caner. Please understand how they interpret "keep pressure": to harass, threaten, swarm, berate, and stalk with ceaseless attacks, deplorable judgments, unequivocal condemnations all in the name of righteousness. You may think of Caner as you wish. You may think of me as you wish. But, brothers and sisters, our treating a person like this--whether guilty or not--makes us just as sinful if not more than what we're accusing them! Indeed we lose all moral high ground when we torture people like this. We can't force repentance. We can't force confession. We can't force compliance. We can't force righteousness. We can't force conformity. We can't force belief. We can't force theology. We can't force exegetical conclusions. If that isn't the template of Inquisitional thinking, I don't know what is. And, quite honestly, the ceaseless harassment against Caner fits precisely the type of godless harassment during the Inquisition! All in the name of righteousness. Every believer needs to shut it down.

Believe what you will. You're obligated to. But stop in its tracks these godless, needless attacks on Ergun Caner. I'm not suggesting anyone in particular who's asked a serious question here has been involved in doing so. I am suggesting that all here should do their part to stop it when you encounter it in others. It's time to shut the internet blood bath down. And, I'm asking those here to help me do it.

Unless there's any new questions, I'm going to assume this thread is finished (I'm not actually turning comments off). I've written a lot here and been more personal than I normally am. If any new questions are asked, I'll deal with it but a) I'm not posting any more single-shot drive-bys ("Caner's a liar!"). No use. Those people belong on Twitter where they can get away with those cowardly comments; b) I'm not posting any identical questions to which I've already answered above.

Lord bless, and thanks for participating...

With that, I am...
Peter

Mark

Peter,

I suspect this has been talked about but I haven't read enough to form an opinion.

If much of the origins of Presbyterian and Calvinism is connected then why don't Calvinist simply refer themselves as Presbyterian?

peter lumpkins

Mark,

That's a good question. But history demonstrates Calvinists have been amongst Baptists within a generation of the first Baptist beginnings in 1609.

Mark

Peter,

What is the difference between Presbyterian Calvinist and Calvinist who refer themselves as "Baptists'"?

What relation and difference does the Presbyterian and Baptist have?

Scott Shaver

"Calvinists have been amongst Baptists within a generation of the first Baptist beginnings in 1609."

True that .... but still doesn't mean we've ever particularly liked them.

T. V.

@Lydia
"I am not an Arminian but I am amused you are admitting it is the ST (theological system) of a fallible man."

I never said that. Calvin isn't even the inventor of Calvinism. Calvin was fallible of coure, and nobody has the perfect theology though. It's not smart, nor fair to attack a theology based on the errors made by man, that's all I wanted to say.

Andrew Barker

T.V. can we quote you on this? .... "Calvinism, a theology based on the errors made by man! "

Michael Allen

An outsider's view....

This feud is starting to come to the attention of those of us, like me, who are outside of America and outside of the Baptist denomination. It is sad to witness. Might I suggest that a third party, independent of, and trusted by, both sides be brought in to facilitate a resolution to prevent further damage to the reputation of Christianity and American Baptists especially.

My impression looking in from the outside is that it has been pretty clearly established that Dr Caner willfully and knowingly embellished his personal testimony in order to increase its impact. This was done over sufficient occasions and time that it would appear to be disingenuous not to classify certain aspects of his personal story as lies, and that these lies trapped Dr Caner into repeating them for consistency. However it seems that Dr Caners position has been re-enforced, at least in part, by those taking such a strong and, at times aggressive, stance against him. Such an assault is bound to drive people further into their bunker until the position becomes as embedded and besieged as it appears to be today.

May I appeal to both 'sides' to show grace. For Dr Caner and his friends (and I use that term in a positive way) there needs to be a more honest appreciation that the 'mis-statements' were willful and knowingly made in order to jazz up a certain testimony. For those that are spending good time repeatedly bringing up Dr Caner's failings (and we all have failings) there needs to be the grace and charity that a clear statement from Dr Caner is not followed with further attempts to humiliate Dr Caner or attempts to drive him from his current position; he should be allowed to rebuild his ministry and reputation with support and charity from all. A clear charitable statement of intent from Dr White, I think, would help here (I don't believe his own scholarly reputation is being helped by the manner in which he has brought, and is bringing, his complaints and charges against Dr Caner).

I do pray that God's grace softens hearts on both sides of this dispute; that both truthfulness and charity now come to the fore together. That may be require an independent person to facilitate the trust and statements from both sets of protagonists.

peter lumpkins

A clear statement was given, Michael. In 2010. White and crew did to that statement what they have proven over the last three years they'd do to yet another statement--hack it to pieces saying "but he'd didn't confess to this" and "he didn't confess to that." If you're just now getting in on this fiasco, I'm afraid you do not understand the viciousness of those who will not let put this thing in God's hands but continue to think they have to 'fix' it themselves all in the name of 'righteousness.'

With that, I am...
Peter

Andrew Barker

Michael Allen: "A clear charitable statement of intent from Dr White, I think, would help here (I don't believe his own scholarly reputation is being helped by the manner in which he has brought, and is bringing, his complaints and charges against Dr Caner).

This is probably old ground, but does anyone know if James White has a Ph.D from an accredited institution? If not, is he not guilty of deception in that people still refer to him as Dr. White and he apparently does nothing to correct this misconception?

peter lumpkins

Andrew,

White has three advanced degrees only one of which is bestowed from an accredited institution (M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary). His ThD and Dmin are from Columbia Evangelical Seminary. For my part, I do not think it's dishonest to hold a degree from unaccredited institutions. Nor are degrees from unaccredited schools necessarily 'fake' though many are. It depends alot upon the school.

One point I've emphasized concerning White's unaccredited degrees is his rather crass insistence against reason that his degree is actually better than a ThD earned in an accredited school. No one but White could concoct such an unbelievable case. Another point I've made about his degrees is contra whatever work he did to earn them, the scholarly community in general will never, ever accept White as a scholar for the simple reason he does not possess the scholarly community's credentials That's life. White chose to 'cut corners' as it were, and it's cost him for it.

Finally what's dishonest so far as I am concerned, however, is White's pattern of skewing his 'scholarly' accomplishments making him appear more accepted in the scholarly community than he actually is. For example, on the bio page for the school from which he 'earned' two advanced degrees, it says:

" Dr. White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus" (embolden mine)

This blurb is completely wrong. It has White presently teaching these subjects at a Southern Baptist seminary which is absolutely, positively incorrect. Even so, both White and the school leave this incorrect information about a faculty person up and consequently mislead the public.

Nor is either White or the school unaware of the misleading factor. I've written extensively on this and neither school nor White has responded by editing the caption.

peter lumpkins

Oh, here's the link for the above info--

http://www.columbiaseminary.org/aboutus/faculty.html#jamesrwhite

J. K. Jones

Thank you for a post highlighting a series of events that Calvinists should be aware of and should condemn (if what you say about those events is correct, some church historians disagree over what Calvin did). I don't think that this is a valid line of argument against Calvinism, however.

We should not reject justification by faith alone because Luther was a hater of the Jews.

We should not reject SBC founders' position on baptism because they owned slaves.

We should not reject J. Edwards' view of election because he owned slaves, either.

We should not reject Peter's confession of the Christ because he was condemned by Jesus Himself in the next paragraph for trying to alter Christ's mission. Neither should we reject Peter's confession because he was mixed up about dietary laws.

We should not fail to pray the Psalms after David because he was a murderer.

We should not reject the wisdom literature of Solomon because he took many wives in violation of The Law.

We should not reject Abraham's views because he lied about his wife either.

Theological issues must be settled by an appeal to the Scriptures themselves or to plain reasoning from the Scriptures. No theologian or apologist has lived a perfect life (excepting Jesus).

J. K. Jones

For the record, I do not follow James White, and I have no desire to. After reading a couple of his books, I simply do not like his approach.

Lydia

Ummm JK Jones, For some of the men you mention, their evil was part of their doctrinal beliefs they TAUGHT as pastors/leaders. Calvin for burning heretics. Edwards for owning slaves.

You can bet I am going to take a deep look at what they believed and taught if they thought such things of Christ.

As to Abraham and David, using them as excuses for heinous sin gets old. Holding up the sins of OT characters to excuse heinous sin long after Christ walked this earth gets so old. David as murderer does not excuse Calvin or his doctrine that affirmed such behavior. Can we grow up from using OT characters to excuse sin? Please? And do I really have to explain Peter for crying out loud?

Scott Shaver

Michael Allen:

I appreciate your gestures but some baptists (myself included) are no longer interested in giving neo-calvinism whatever props anyone might think are due.

Some of us are more interested in expending our breath, energies and any spirit led inclinations of the heart away from any unnecessary associations with those who choose to construct their image of God at that theological altar.

Nothing untoward or even unchristian about that in my opinion and from a biblical perspective.

Scott Shaver

Peter:

The Columbia Seminary you mention in reference to James White's academic credentials...would that be in Missouri or anywhere close to St. Louis?

Eric

Lydia,
I don't think his point was to excuse the sin.
His point was to not reject a teaching based on a mans sin.

Very different ?

Eric

One addition we can all agree upon.
Our one and final authority for truth is based on and found in
Scripture....Gods word. Not mans word.
Which is why we don't dismiss truth because of the sin of a man.

peter lumpkins

Eric,

I touched upon this in the first part of the thread. I'm not under the impression that anyone here argues that a) if a person proves to be a sinner, then b) all he or she says goes down the drain as so much dirty dish water. Once we state this, one cannot avoid affirming the proposition that a person's personal actions affect in some sense the beliefs he or she confesses. Hence, it seems to me one cannot be absolutist on either side.

Lydia

"I don't think his point was to excuse the sin.
His point was to not reject a teaching based on a mans sin.

Very different ?"

I think Peter makes the point well but will add that if one (a leader who teaches) believed burning a heretic pleased God, then I am going to look very close at his doctrine.

Just how bad can they consistently be for you to think there might be a problem with their doctrine? Can we really separate beliefs from practice over the long term? Oops, you probably can if you are a Calvinist who believes in determinist God construct who is controlling everything 24/7.

I am wondering where Hebrews 10 fits in. Guess it depends on what one calls sin. Burning heretics was elevated to pleasing God status so it was ok then? Excusable as a 'man of his time" argument. That is why I keep referring to the Nuremburg defense here. So much of the thinking from that camp follows along with it.

peter lumpkins

Lydia,

As I said somewhere in this thread, what remains telling is not that we might discovery a hero of the faith would be a sinner--who even blinks at this?--nor have we suggested all Calvinistic teachings are corrupt because of Calvin's sin (as you rightly point out). Instead the interesting thing is the degree to which Calvin's defenders inevitably bleed out the severity of Calvin's actual immoral action on one hand all the while rationalizing it away as a non-issue--"Let's talk about something else!"

In addition, it's not been raised yet, at least as I saw, concerning the possibility of Calvin's deterministic understanding of meticulous sovereignty playing a role in his understanding of personal ethics. If Calvin's philosophical notion was carried to its logical conclusion, his defending his part in putting Servetus to death is ipso facto defending God's decretive will in putting Servetus to death. In short, Calvin was doing God's bidding, an instrument in God's hands. Consequently, Calvin was innocent because God was innocent.

Eric

Lydia,
I think the New Testament is clear on qualifications for an elder.
I would not follow a teacher who is disqualified.
I'm not " Calvinist" because I follow Calvin.
I don't read Calvin, don't have interest in Calvin's writings.

I'm reformed baptist because the bible teaches it.

Andrew Barker

Eric: To be strict you're a reformed baptist because that's what you believe the Bible teaches.

There are those who think otherwise, myself included, and are non-reformed Christians because that's what we believe the Bible teaches.

Those who argue that Paul was a murderer and yet he contributed to scripture are simply stating the obvious. Can anybody point to any of the authors of the various books of the Bible and say "this person was without sin"?!

Any writings after the canon of scripture has been agreed upon are an entirely different matter. Nobody since the Apostle John (if that is chronologically the last book to be written) has been accepted as writing anything which is God inspired. This means that their views must be held and judged against scripture. Paul sites an example in Rom 2:21 "those who preach against stealing, do you steal?" Here Paul was asking people to judge what teachers were saying against how those teachers behaved!

We have not only a right but a duty to listen, analyse and evaluate all doctrine in this way and if the person's life does not appear to match up to what they are saying, then you have to question what is being said. We can also do this in retrospect, so Calvin has to be judged on what he said against what he did. The record shows quite clearly that he not only changed his mind regarding various aspects of theology but he sought to justify his actions by doing so.

His attempt at a cover up is perpetuated today by many reformed adherents who will go to great lengths to defend Calvin. Some will say he was hardly involved in the trial, it was out of his hands, he had nothing to do with the sentencing, he wanted Servetus hanged not burned etc etc. It is interesting that they cannot see this as a deception and it is as if they too have been blinded by the same spirit which affected Calvin himself who could not, or would not face the truth of what he had done. There is always forgiveness with repentance but you don't receive forgiveness unless you repent.

Lydia

"Lydia,
I think the New Testament is clear on qualifications for an elder.
I would not follow a teacher who is disqualified.
I'm not " Calvinist" because I follow Calvin.
I don't read Calvin, don't have interest in Calvin's writings.

I'm reformed baptist because the bible teaches it. "

Eric, I am not following you. How did we get from burning heretics to qualifications for elder? There does not seem to be any specifics on burning heretics there. Perhaps that is what gave Calvin the idea it was ok. (wink)

Yes, well the bible teaches me differently. I don't need the "Reformed" part because that came so long AFTER Jesus Christ. So there we are. :o)

"If Calvin's philosophical notion was carried to its logical conclusion, his defending his part in putting Servetus to death is ipso facto defending God's decretive will in putting Servetus to death."

Peter, I totally agree with "logical" conclusions and glad they are welcomed here to discuss. :o)

Have you read Calvin's Defensio? (for burning Servetus)

eric

Andrew,

Agreed, we both believe we are right based on Scripture.
Wish it were more black and white.
Which is why I can count you...a non reformed....as a brother.
For those of us who enjoy the process of "arguing" a point, must not let it detract from our primary goal of making disciples of Christ and calling ALL men, woman and children
to faith in Christ.

The bottom line is that (in the end) it doesn't matter which of us is correct in doctrine. We both hold to
what I wrote above and need to be about the business of going into the whole world preaching the Word.

We both preach the same word. Repent and believe on Christ for he is the only way to salvation. Calling ALL men to do this.

Mark

Peter,

I've studied some of the limited verses regarding Esau's life and in the end (by appearence) through his own repentence he made peace with Jacob. When Jacob was fearing Esau would retaliate against him later in life, Esau was actually welcoming him.

Did God love Esau?

Eric

Sorry Lydia for not being clear.

I was referring to your comment asking how bad a teacher needs to be before I question their doctrine.

Hope this help clarify....

Andrew Barker

Mark: I've studied some of the limited verses regarding Esau's life and in the end (by appearence) through his own repentence he made peace with Jacob. When Jacob was fearing Esau would retaliate against him later in life, Esau was actually welcoming him.

Did God love Esau?

I can't really see the connection between your opening statement and your question. You comments are correct as far as I can see. But why does this lead you to question if God loved Esau? God loves us because God is love, so why would that not include Esau?

Mark

Andrew,

I agree with you.

There are those who embrace "predestination" theology who literally Interprets Rom 9:13 "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated" without reading the whole chapter.

I'm discussing this with a 5 Pointer. who thinks God hated Esau.

I wanted Peter's take on this but I can see Pete was focused putting together a write up on White, when I ask him that question.

The comments to this entry are closed.