Francis Turretin's Mystical Sense of Romans 9

How does Francis Turretin respond to the fact that in Romans 9:11 Paul quotes from Genesis 25:23 wherein the election of Jacob and Esau related to national blessings, rather than individual salvation? "The answer is although that announcement may be extended to the posterity also (Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:3) and, in the historical sense, may be referred to the blessing or external appointment to dominion or servitude, still this does not hinder it from being referred (in a mystical sense) properly to election and reprobation with respect to the fathers themselves." (Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctiv Theology, Vol. 1, Topic 4, Q 14, XIX, p. 385) 
I agree that Paul was using the OT examples of Jacob and Esau to teach more than national election. But I think pointing out that in the OT the passages were national does a lot to blunt the idea that Romans 9 is obviously Calvinistic. Turretin has to retreat to a mystical sense, which inherently seems more prone to be open to a range of interpretations. If Jacob and Esau were just types, how do we know they were types of unconditional individual election and reprobation rather than types of God's promise vs. works? After all, the lead in context seems to strongly indicate that God planned to save via God's promise, not nationality or works.

Comments

Anonymous said…
whether we like it of not ,its by Gods grace,call,and word that any of us are saved!!God elected jacob to bring forth the messiha in due time based on his secret pourpose !!let us just sow the seed of Gods word and stop staining out knats and swallowing camels !!!!
February 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more