Question to Romans 9:13

[Esdra]

Hi

I just came across Romans 9:13 (and Malachi 1:2-3) and I had to think about you Calvinists.

Would you say that these verses support predestination? I mean that Jacob was predestinated by God, where as Esau wasn't, or better said was predestinated to damnation?

Here the verses in context:

Romans 9

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9, ESVUK)​

Malachi 1

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob's brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” 4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country’, and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!” (Malachi 1, ESVUK)​

Esdra

 

[hedrick]

If I read Calvin's commentary correctly (and maybe I don't), he doesn't quite say that Esau is reprobate. Rather, he seems to see an analogy. He seems to see the choice of Jacob rather than Esau as really a choice of Israel as the covenant people. In this he is certainly being true to the OT context. However he sees this as the basis for an analogy.

"Then the first proposition is,—“As the blessing of the covenant separates the Israelitic nation from all other people, so the election of God makes a distinction between men in that nation, while he predestinates some to salvation, and others to eternal condemnation.” The second proposition is,—“There is no other basis for this election than the goodness of God alone, and also since the fall of Adam, his mercy; which embraces whom he pleases, without any regard whatever to their works.” The third is,—“The Lord in his gratuitous election is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting equally the same grace to all; but, on the contrary, he passes by whom he wills, and whom he wills he chooses.” All these things Paul briefly includes in one sentence: he then goes on to other things."

As most mainline Presbyterians, I'm wary of double predestination. But Calvin's exegesis is more sensitive to the OT context than I had expected. The real question for exegesis is whether Calvin's analogy is right. And this comes down to the question of whether Paul is speaking of individual salvation in that passage. If he is, Calvin's argument makes sense. Mainline Reformed commentators do not typically think Rom 9 is about individual salvation. Conservative commentators believe that it is. Contrast people such as N T Wright or Paul Achtemeier with the very well-regarded but conservative commentary by Moo.

Somewhat surprisingly, Moo doesn't cite Calvin's commentary. He does acknowledge that the OT text provides a basis for a corporate understanding of Jacob and Esau. But he thinks Paul is clearly speaking of individuals. So he opts for an individual understanding. It would seem that given this understanding, Calvin's approach is the best.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi

I just came across Romans 9:13 (and Malachi 1:2-3) and I had to think about you Calvinists.

Would you say that these verses support predestination?

Yes, 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)", "not yet born" in context, is in reference to eternity past before the foundation of the world. To put it another way, we could say Jacob and Esau were Pre-elected before they were born, in the context of the rest of Romans 9, one elected to mercy, the other to justice (destruction) If you'll notice there is an intimate relationship between predestination and election revealed in Romans Chapter 9, so close one could nearly replace one word for the other, except one refers to a time of choice beforehand, the other to choice, or actively choosing, and used differently can refer to a chosen group.

I mean that Jacob was predestinated by God, where as Esau wasn't, or better said was predestinated to damnation?

For more Pauline context...

Eph 1:11 "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,"

"Lord, give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt." St. Augustine The confessions of St. Augustine, Chapter XXIX.40

The question is not so much whether Predestination is double, but whether God actively Predestines both those He has chosen to have mercy on, and those He has chosen not to have mercy on. The proper calvinist, I mean Biblical response is that God actively Predestines those He has mercy on, while passively Predestining those He has chosen not to have mercy on. As surely as our Lord prayed "Thy will be done" not I hope, or maybe, or anything suggesting uncertainty. So Predestination also involves the will of God, for it involves the sovereign choices of God (including knowledge of those choices, and the knowledge of God is certain, immutable) "who has resisted His will"? So even in passively Predestinating, the mysterious will of God, is such that it's either His will be done or done is His will. As surely as mercy and justice are part of the will of God, so too there is an active and passive aspect to the will of God, with respect to His choices and allowances.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Moved from Semper main forum.
MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[AMR]

It is instructive to consider the will of God in these matters. See the response I gave to a poster in the AAC forum this morning here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7781313/