Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Addendum

While examining the arguments presented by Dr. Rauser and comparing them to the theology of mainstream Calvinism, it occurred to me that there is a striking difference in our methods. He was willing to write off a Biblical text as too "complex" in order to maintain the simplicity of his Systematic Theology. In contrast, we have drawn out the clear meaning from a variety of relevant Biblical texts and attempted to construct from them a coherent description of God's disposition toward fallen humanity. We are willing, by God's grace, to take the texts at full face value and accept the logical challenges created by exegesis - even if we can't solve the logical challenges (although in this case we can).

A question facing every Evangelical theologian is this: am I going to accept the whole of the Bible as God's unique and inerrant self-revelation - and the only light by which I see - or will I impose my own system of thought upon it?

 

Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. 

Like some Evangelical theologians, this house is
lacking something important: a solid foundation.
Like some Calvinists, it could use a better paint job
and a more welcoming entrance.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

 

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities": 

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com, 
 a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

For a textbook example of how the failure to apprehend Biblical paradox can lead to erroneous theological conclusions, check out Randal Rauser's article, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist."
 
First of all, I'd say every word of Scripture is of use to a Calvinist. But let's take a look at his arguments to see what's good and what's not so good, and whether he has a point.
 
Where Rauser Gets It Right
 
First, we should point out a couple of positive features.

1. He refreshingly notes that some Calvinists believe that "God loves all people but has a special love for the elect." Non-Calvinists often miss this point, but Rauser does not. The truth is, all mainstream Calvinists affirm this, while hypers deny it. 

2. He correctly notes that the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" compels us to place greater weight on the clear passages when we are examining less clear passages. That's a useful principle that no self-respecting Calvinist would argue against.

Pretty good so far.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

 
1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Non-Omnibenevolent Calvinism (NOBC): God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. 

Omnibenevolent Calvinism (OBC): God loves all people but has a special love for the elect.

Here's what he misses: Biblical Calvinism embraces the paradox of God's love and hatred for all unrepentant sinners. What Rauser terms OBC and NOBC are each essential components of mainstream Calvinism. In other words, there is a sense in which God loves all people, and there is a sense in which He hates all the wicked. He is nonetheless omnibenevolent. So, we have three apparently contradictory propositions:

• God loves all people, sinners included (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35)
• God hates all unregenerate sinners (Psalm 11:5)
• God has a special love for the elect (Ephesians 1:3-6)

These propositions are not actually contradictory or mutually exclusive. They appear to be, and yet they are not so hard to reconcile on Calvinistic terms. Different Calvinists resolve the paradox in different ways, but every mainstream Calvinist affirms these three undeniably Biblical truths. Rauser's artificial division of two separate Calvinisms - one affirming one truth of Scripture, and the other affirming another truth of Scripture - creates a false dilemma that is not applicable to mainstream Calvinism.
 
I don't believe Rauser purposely creates a straw man here; I think he is truly unaware of the beautiful Biblical paradox that Calvinism embraces (in fairness, this might partially result from the fact that most debating Calvinists are so zealous to get their point across that they fail to present a balanced perspective). However, Rauser's misunderstanding fatally clouds his analysis and renders his arguments invalid because he assumes that Calvinists believe God can only love or only hate a given class of persons. Scripture presents a more complex disposition, and most Calvinists are willing to accept this.
 
Properly speaking, God loves and hates all of the unconverted, including the unconverted elect who are under His wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The non-elect are loved through Common Grace, while the elect are loved with Saving Grace. Unconditional Election means God has chosen to show saving mercy to a subset of sinners who are chosen beforehand according to His own wise counsels. Reprobation means that God has chosen to allow some sinners to go on in their natural course of rebellion and receive the just punishment they are due. Even so, the reprobate are extended much mercy and patience throughout their earthly lives (Romans 9:22, Romans 11:32, Psalm 145, 15-17). There is nothing to prevent God from saving them if they are willing to be saved. No one suffering in hell can deny that God showed love to him, that God was kind to him, that God was patient with him, that God was willing to save him on condition of repentance, or that God treated him justly. No one suffering in hell can say that God somehow prevented him from repenting; all who are there know that they were unable to repent simply because they were unwilling - and that they remain unwilling in spite of their sufferings. Esau included. 
 
That is the ugly face of human sin. No wonder God condemns it.
 
To the elect, God grants a willingness to be saved; yet for His own part He is always willing and ready to save all who come to Him. He is truly omnibenevolent! Jacob and Esau were both loved and hated in various ways, but Esau was not loved with electing love, while Jacob was. Thus we conclude, in opposition to Rauser: the phrase, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," is of great use to the Calvinist because it highlights the electing love of God. Yet it does not diminish His general love for all people, or His general hatred for all the wicked. 
 
All the words of Scripture are useful to the Calvinist because he strives to take all of them together, as the whole counsel of God, and hold them in their proper balance.
 
In part 2, we will examine Rauser's hermeneutical arguments and support our thesis with a study of the Biblical texts themselves.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 11 - Louis Berkhof

Louis Berkhof posthumously wins one of our famous t-shirts for the THEOparadoxical thinking exhibited in his defense of the doctrine of common grace. Berkhof sees God's Being as infinite and supra-logical, and therefore capable of more deeply complex intentions than many would typically ascribe to Him.

Although some will argue that the Scriptures make no distinction between "common" and "special" grace, these designations are nothing more than a helpful way of describing God's mercy toward all mankind, in contrast with His sovereign election of some (both of which are clearly taught in the Scriptures). We can think of "common grace" as that kindness which God extends to all people everywhere - even those who never believe. All sinners who continue to live on earth receive air, water, food, sunshine and a host of other little enjoyments each day. If God's kindness and love were restricted to the elect alone, the reprobate could not be held guilty for failing to give thanks to God for His Providential bounty. But as it stands, all men are guilty of aggravated sin by exalting God's good gifts above God Himself, and loving the effects of divine love rather than the Cause Himself. Unregenerate men take these gifts as deserved quantities, while the righteous feel ever so unworthy to receive them, seeing their own natural sinfulness clearly. The saints wonder how it can be that God should so favor them as to provide even one more breath - let alone fellowship with Christ and eternal life in the joy of their Lord.

In Arminianism, common and special grace are both denied. Such distinctions are unnecessary if there is no sovereign election. Arminians posit a universal "prevenient grace," which essentially means that God gives every person an equal opportunity to make a free will choice for or against Christ. In this way, they preserve the foundation of salvation as grounded in divine grace and initiated by God, while denying that God is ultimately decisive in the matter. Prevenient grace simply makes it possible for man to choose what he wants, and it portrays God as "offering" salvation in the hope that some will respond without His special intervention. While this ascribes a certain attractive sense of humanistic "fairness" to God, it has the negative side effect of placing man's will above that of the Creator. It also gives me the right to boast against non-believers, since I wisely responded to the prevenient grace and they did not. Calvinists note that God is neither required nor obligated to save any sinner, that He would remain just if He never offered any opportunities for salvation, and therefore He has the right to sovereignly intervene where and as He chooses. Yet the Calvinist does not leave the non-elect beyond the glow of God's mercy, which is over all His works and abounds too much to be escaped entirely - even by those who are fleeing from Him.

Interestingly, the denial of common grace is a defining mark of hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God's hatred of the non-elect, and deny any sense of God's love or grace toward the reprobate. These matters must be sorted out with Scriptural reasoning, and with a healthy sense of paradox in view, for the same God who "hated" Esau also allowed him a place to live in safety, command over an army of 400 men, and resources he himself described as "plenty." (Gen. 33:9). Did Esau deserve these things? No? Then they were certainly given as gifts of grace - undeserved! How can these things be? Without further adieu, let's hear Mr. Berkhof's defense of the more moderate, Biblically balanced perspective which is set forth in classical Calvinism . . .

"Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realization of his reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories. Are the elect in this life the objects of God’s’ love only, and never in any sense the objects of His wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: “For we are consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7. Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abides on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36. And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature children of wrath even as the rest”? Eph. 2:3 . Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God’s love. And if they who are the objects of God’s redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11 ; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21 ; Luke 6:35: Rom. 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God’s’ revelation is not dependable on this subject."

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 445-446.

HT: CalvinAndCalvinism.com