Introduction
Someone asked if Esau had the ability not to sin in Romans 9. If I were strictly adhering to the Calvinist line, I would say that Esau had free will and the theoretical (natural) ability to choose righteousness. However, due to human depravity, he, like all of us, lacked the moral ability to choose God without divine intervention. This mirrors Christ’s impeccability. Christ had the theoretical ability to sin, but His divine nature bound His will to always choose righteousness.
A Personal Take on Ability
However, this is what I really believe. While this perspective aligns with traditional Calvinist thought, I don’t like how it’s often expressed. Esau actually did have the real ability to choose God. In our everyday understanding, when we say someone has the ability to do something, we mean they genuinely can choose to do it. Esau genuinely had the ability to choose righteousness, but his nature drove his will to such a degree that he never would have. It’s the same with Christ. Christ had the real ability to sin. He genuinely could make that choice. His free will was intact, but because of who He was, He never would have sinned.
Augustine’s Story of the Pears
This concept is vividly illustrated by Augustine’s story of stealing pears. Augustine, a fourth-century bishop of Hippo, is highly respected in the Calvinist tradition and is often regarded as a precursor to Calvinist thought. He is sometimes thought of as the first Calvinist, positioned between the Apostle Paul and John Calvin himself.
In his “Confessions,” Augustine recounts a youthful episode where he and his friends stole pears from a neighbor’s tree, not out of need or hunger, but simply for the thrill of doing something wrong. He reflects on this act with bewilderment, noting that the pears were not even particularly desirable, and he threw most of them to the pigs. The act of theft was driven purely by a perverse pleasure in sinning for its own sake. Augustine saw this as a profound example of the sinful nature that compels human actions.
Find on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google
Augustine articulated his understanding of human nature and free will with a series of Latin phrases that describe the states of human freedom in relation to sin across different epochs:
1. Posse non peccare (able not to sin) – Before the Fall, humans had the ability not to sin.
2. Non posse non peccare (not able not to sin) – After the Fall, humans are in a state where they cannot avoid sinning due to their corrupted nature.
3. Non posse peccare (not able to sin) – In the state of glory, such as in heaven, humans will be in a state where they cannot sin.
Augustine’s framework shows the progression from a state of potential righteousness, to inevitable sinfulness, and finally to ultimate sanctification.
Conclusion
So, while Esau had the real ability to choose righteousness, his nature drove him to sin, just as Augustine felt compelled to steal the pears without any external necessity. Our choices are profoundly influenced by our nature, and without divine intervention, we are bound to our sinful inclinations. At the end of the day, this drives us to rely on God’s grace to overcome our inherent sinfulness.
Humans, by nature of being created in God’s image, always have total freedom and real choices. On earth, we are theoretically capable of not sinning, but our nature drives us otherwise. In glory, we will still have the theoretical ability to sin, but our nature will compel us to choose what is right, similar to how Christ, despite having the ability to sin, was driven by His nature to always choose righteousness.
John Calvin summarized this well:
“He does not move the will in such a manner as has been taught and believed for many ages—that it is afterward in our choice either to obey or resist the motion—but by disposing it efficaciously.”
Calvin emphasized that while humans act willingly, their will is inevitably influenced by their fallen nature until transformed by divine grace.
8 replies to "Could Esau Choose God – This Calvinist’s Perspective"
No choice happens in a vacuum.
Nice post. This is a very sensitive topic with many people who struggle to see the distinction between hyper and orthodox Calvinism. A brother I have met with recently is really under that assumption that I believe we don’t get to make a decision and that God “makes” me believe. It might seem like picking at nits, but my prayer is for him to understand that without divine intervention I would never “want” to believe. He struggles to see the distinction.
Thank God that he saves. If he did not, none would be.
Thanks Les. Great to see you. Amen!
May I present Romans 5:13? That verse gets no attention. Also, Romans 4:15.
Then, looking at the law, was Abraham before the law?
The Law states to not sleep with your sister, whether she be the daughter of your mother, or the daughter of your father. So why did God overlook that, by blessing bro/sis with an inbred Isaac?
Genesis 26:5
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Did Esau fall under Romans 5:13? Abraham certainly did.
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Another verse that gets no attention is Acts 17:30, discussing those who followed other gods, like those at Mars Hill.
Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.
Winked. But now….
Then we have Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel
Look at the word, “nature” in verse 14, and the context that it was used.
I question Calvinism use of the word, “nature”, as in, “SIN nature”. That phrase is not anywhere in the Bible.
All language os a bit difficult. We all do the best we can. We are all a bit wrong and a bit right. But, thankfully, the Gospel is easy enough for us all to see. We will just continue to have fun and try to flex the VERY SMALL theological muscles we do have. Thanks for commenting Ed, good to see you!
Thank you, Mr. Patton, for allowing my comments. It’s always good to question Apologetics of the orthodox, as I don’t believe in original sin, not one bit. Both doctrines of grace, irresistible, and preveniant depend on that doctrine. David was not a sinner from the womb. Sin is the transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 states. Paul didn’t know what sin was, until he got knowledge of the law, as Romans 7:7-9 states. Jews are not introduced to sin until bar/bat Mitzvah. Before that introduction, sin is dead in their lives.
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Verse 9 tells you when Paul spiritually died. And that is the same death of Adam and Eve once they ate of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:17 is discussing spiritual death, not the death of the body.
The church fathers made it plain, that for those who claim that Adam was put on this earth to naturally die, let them be anathema.
My name is anathema.
1 Cor 15:42-46 tells you that the Church fathers were wrong. It tells you that Adam was going to die a natural death regardless, all because his body was made that way…dirt.
I don’t think Paul’s treatment of Esau in Romans has anything to do with Esau’s relationship with God. If you ask me, Jacob was probably a bigger rascal than his twin. It has to do with God’s choice to use someone for a purpose or a service. I won’t be surprised to see Esau in Heaven.
I 100 percent concur! This is how I’ve always seen it.
Ishmael, the same. By rights, he’s the first born. But by promise, Isaac was the choice.
But also, based on Romans 9, I also believe that the Pharoah is also in heaven. But there is an additional verse to help bolster that claim.
Romans 5:13, and 4:15.