“Esau I Hated”–Does God Hate Sinners?

The following is an excerpt (modified slightly to a “blog post” format) from my paper, “God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9.1-23” (see post; see paper). It comes from an  excursus in the paper titled, “Esau I Hated” based on the language in Romans 9:13.

“Esau I Hated”

For many Christians, the three simple words “Esau I hated” (Rom 9:13) form one of the most puzzling statements in their Bible. Is this actually saying that God literally hated Esau? Many respond negatively by pointing out that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election. Consequently, “Jacob I loved” means “Jacob I elected” while “Esau I hated” means “Esau I rejected.”[1] Given that Paul’s argument in Rom 9:6-13 concerns election, this interpretation is without a doubt what Paul is teaching as he quotes Malachi 1:2-3. This fact also helps distinguish between God’s action in election and His attitude towards the non-elect. In other words, if “hate” simply refers to God’s attitude towards individuals due to their sin, Rom 9:13 would say, “I hated both Jacob and Esau,” for both are equally depraved. But the text shocks the reader with “Jacob I loved” indicating that behind “love” is the act of election and therefore behind “hate” is the reality of rejection.

Continue reading

God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9:1-23

The following is a paper I wrote on the topics of reprobation, double predestination, hardening, and the like, based on an in depth study of Paul’s words in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Below you will find links to my Romans 9 translation/diagram as well as a download of the entire paper in PDF format.

Downloads:

My Romans 9.1-2 translation and diagram which I used throughout this paper.

The paper: God, the Non-Elect, and Romans 9 – An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of Reprobation and Hardening in Romans 9.1-23

Thomas R. Schreiner Refuting the Idea of Election (and Predestination) as Corporate as Opposed to Individual

While reading Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical And Theological Reflections” I ran across this subpoint in which he makes some good refutations against the concept of corporate election–the idea that God has elected to salvation a corporate entity (i.e., the Church) as opposed to individuals. I hope that you will find his argument thought provoking and beneficial.

To say that election involves the selection of one group rather than another raises another problem that warrants an extended explanation. Most scholars who claim election is corporate argue that personal faith is the ultimate and decisive reason why some people are saved rather than others. Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that faith is the result of God’s predestining work. But those who opt for corporate election think that they have a better conception of election than Calvinists, and at the same time they can maintain that faith is what ultimately determines one’s salvation. Now it seems to me that there is a flaw in this reasoning that is fatal to those who espouse corporate election. If God corporately elects some people to salvation, and the election of one group rather than another was decided before any group came into existence (9:11), and it was not based on any works that this group did or any act of their will (9:11–12, 16), then it would seem to follow that the faith of the saved group would be God’s gift given before time began. But if the faith of any corporate entity depends upon God’s predestining work, then individual faith is not decisive for salvation. What is decisive would be God’s election of that group. In other words, the group elected would necessarily exercise faith since God elected this corporate entity.

Continue reading

Is Predestination Based on Whom God Foreknows Will Believe?

The Bible explicitly speaks about predestination, and therefore, the doctrine is undeniable. However, many disagree on how to interpret its meaning. One view in particular believes that God predestines to salvation all He foreknows will believe on Him. This view is commonly called conditional election because it states God chooses (elects) individuals to be saved based upon (conditioned upon) their foreknown future belief. It makes election conditional on man’s will in essence. The main text used to support this view is Romans 8:29.

Romans 8:29 – For those whom He [speaking of God] foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

From simply reading this verse, it is very possible to make the assumption that God’s predestining is based on His foreknowledge of people’s future faith in Him. However, I feel that the very next verse (v. 30) is vital to a proper understanding of what verse 29 is truly saying. Verse 29 by itself is an unfinished thought in many senses.
Continue reading

The Cross and Salvation by Bruce Demarest

In The Cross and Salvation Bruce Bruce Demarest takes the reader step by step through the doctrines of salvation in order of their logical and temporal occurrence. He groups the book into six sections: 1) the plan of salvation which includes an introduction, grace, and election/predestination, 2) the provision of salvation, being the atonement, 3) the application of salvation, including the subjective aspects such as divine calling, conversion, and regeneration, and 4) the objective aspects such as union with Christ and justification, 5) the progress of salvation which is sanctification as well as preservation and perseverance, and finally, 6) the perfecting of salvation, which is glorification.

Within each section Demarest starts off by presenting the doctrine at hand’s history and significant theological views of the doctrine such as the Pelagian/Liberal view, the Semi-Pelagian (Catholic) view, Lutheran view, Weslyian/Arminian view, Neo-Orthodox (Karl Barth) view, Liberation view, Pentecostal view, Nazarene view, Keswick view, High Calvinist view, Moderately Reformed (or Calvinistic or Reformed Evangelicals) view, as well as other views. (However, which systems he talks about differs from one doctrine to the next, because some systems apply to certain doctrines and not others). This section is remarkable for many reason. For one, it lays a historical context for the reader. And secondly, it gives the reader a broad perspective on the doctrine and the various viewpoints concerning it, making the reader aware of false interpretations that might go unnoticed otherwise and possibly introducing the reader to various beliefs besides his own, which has several obvious benefits.
Continue reading