The teaching of St. Apostle Paul on predestination in comparison with the views of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon

The rapprochement of the Apostle with pseudo-Solomon regarding predestination. Exaggeration of interpretations of this point in a non-canonical book, which preaches the actual doctrine of the “election” of Israel. Attempts to eliminate St. Paul's historical-cosmic predestinatism and its essential meaning in protecting the absolute supremacy of God, who fulfills his plans in the world with the complicity of human freedom, intended for this, but regardless of its deviations and even despite the persistence of a rebellious or evil will. Hence: the responsibility of sinners and sanity for the elect, especially put forward for the purposes of divine providence. Frequent parallels. The peculiarity of the apostolic moral teaching is that, contrary to the early Christian view, ordinary Christian life is motivated in the Spirit, according to which, supposedly, the very concept of Christ changes. Accurate data do not justify such extreme conclusions and, having analyzed them, we ultimately find that the apostolic ethics does not in the least hint at a change in Christology with the use of pneumatism and does not at all refer to the idea of ​​merging the Lord with the Spirit. It is not surprising that, despite all the rapprochements, this is not actually achieved. Therefore, the spirituality of the Redeemer remains the same and does not at all inspire that St. Paul tried to overcome the obstacles of his Hellenistic disdain for materiality, which allowed only pneumatic assistance and perception. With the fall away of such layers, the evangelist again gets rid of suspicions of dualistic radicalism, and without it there will be no elements in human nature that fatally enhance the fate of people. The personality turned out to be free and it is natural that its future is formed not without its own complicity. Such observations already clarify in advance the doctrine of predestination, which is put forward during the genetic consideration of the apostolic truth from logical compulsion, just as its evaluation is no less inevitable. All this is easy to comprehend for the simplest reasons. It is possible that the author of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon gravitated towards dualistic premises, under which the moment of human freedom is almost completely repressed. In any case, it does not affect the very management of individual life and can only slightly vary its course in particulars, but this does not change the final result at all. It would be more accurate to even say that everyone here is simply absolutely helpless. Being spiritual, the personality is constrained by hostile materiality, not having the power to subjugate it and rise above such limitations. This will be undoubted even in addition to the doctrine of the pre-world decline of spiritual potentialities. Original deliverance is not available to people. However, if they are not all doomed to destruction, then we are convinced that there is a supreme irresistible predetermination. Such a view is indisputable regarding the very means of salvation. They are contained in the spirit of wisdom that brings eternity. But the acquisition of sophia does not depend on human diligence and is an unconditional gift of God, sent from heaven solely on the initiative of the Almighty - without human participation, which is incredible due to the fact of human helplessness. This means that for each subject, God is the complete manager, either showering him with the mercy of His benevolence, or taking away all hopes from the most ardent aspirations. Of course, here we get typical pre-destinatism. It is inextricably linked with the question of achieving blessed wisdom, and on this point it is formulated that St. Paul was indebted to pseudo-Solomon and coincided with him in dogmatic views. Then the conclusion inevitably emerges that the evangelist had to accept the consequences, since he had assimilated the fundamental data. It is no less clear that this touches upon the most important element of apostolic contemplation when it comes to the essence of the mystery of the saving economy. So everything leans toward a categorical conclusion that the great educator of languages ​​continued to borrow the most doctrinal content from the Jewish writer. It is logical if on the present subject it is stated that in it the apostolic dependence on the non-canonical monument is not formal, but completely material, extending not only to the external expression of thoughts, but also to the concepts themselves. The echoes are so similar 2 that St. Paul directly adheres to his model 3 and imitates it almost to the point of literary copying 4, why serious doubt on this score is impermissible 5. We will again have the usual process of Hellenization, which precisely gives all the originality to the apostolic reasoning. Therefore, they are based on an established Jewish interpretation, ennobled by Hellenistic trends and brought to a special roundness. They say that the Christian doctrine of predestination is akin to the speculations of the Talmud and midrash 6 , and Pavlov’s treatment of it is rooted in Pharisaic determinism 7 and drawn from the reserves of Pharisaic schools that developed the Old Testament prophetic prophecies 8 . With these transformations and adaptations, it is clear everywhere that the evangelist actually renewed the theory of election, revealed in Jewish theology 9 . But the life-giving current of Hellenic idealism invaded this atmosphere and caused a corresponding transformation, where a radical deviation from previous norms is sometimes noticed. It is known that modern Judaism was alien to the apostolic confidence in salvation, which was built on particularism, from which it is extracted that with the help of Jewish materials St. Paul achieved super-Jewish and anti-Jewish results, and the thought of the omnipotence of God no longer serves the arrogance of the chosen people, contributing to the inviolability of the hopes of every blessed individual 10. This universalism of application is commented on, not without apparent success, in the tone that the apostolic “doctrine of predestination, along with the doctrine of the law, is nothing more than a converted and directed anti-Jewish pharisaism 11.” But the larger the change, the more necessary are the motivating factors for it. And as soon as such are found in the book of Wisdom, this finally confirms its active influence in the origin of the analyzed dogma, which is genetically associated with its literary prototype (Prov. Sol. XI, 22. XII, 8-22. XV, 7) and in terminology (Rom. IX, 19. 20; IX, 21 Prov. Sol. 7) and according to its component parts a) in the idea of the absolutely free and absolutely irresistible sovereignty of God (Rom. IX, 19-21), b) in the recognition of the merciful condescension of the Divine to enemies despite the futility of this for them (Rom. IX, 22) and c) in the opposition of the vessels of wrath and the child of God from the side of the final outcome 12. With the elimination of extremes, the argumentation only gains in its persuasiveness. It puts forward the same analogies: “1) The idea of ​​the limitless omnipotence of God, before which man is nothing (Prov. Sol. XI, 22. XII, 12 ff. Wed. Rom. IX, 19-23). Of course, this thought is not original to the book of Wisdom and is found in the Old Testament even in a similar expression, and therefore this point alone would be indecisive. 2) In solemn connection both writers have a peculiar idea that God spares His enemies, although he knows that this will not bring them any benefit (Prov. Sl. XII, 8. 10. 11a. 20a cf. Rom. IX, 22). What in the first case is interpreted specifically about the Canaanites, on whose fate this thesis is illustrated, in the second the perspective is broader - this is not important. 3) A similar antithesis regarding the fate of the enemies and children of God (Rom. XII, 20-22 cf. Rom. IX, 22-23). In all this, mutual affinity reigns,” and, exaggeration aside, its power rises in its impressiveness. The benefit from this rapprochement is undeniable and enormous, for “the dark anacoluoic expressions of the apostles, in unraveling which interpreters have not yet achieved the slightest agreement, are best understood with the hypothesis that the Apostle was presented with the thoughts and terminological formulas of the Wisdom of Solomon, but when assimilating them, he had to give them a different turn so that they would harmoniously enter into his considerations” 13. All these observations combine to force the conclusion that a non-canonical document was responsible for the special Christian modifications of the Biblical-Jewish doctrine of predestination in St. Pavel. All this states that 1) the quoted book professes predestination, 2) which the evangelist proclaimed through it in the original treatment, and 3) their genetic connection is substantiated by examples of characteristic literary coincidences. The latter is the most significant in critical constructions, but their strength is based on the fact that there is a sufficient source for the projected borrowings. Then, in an objective solution to the whole problem, it is necessary to find out exactly whether the non-canonical monument contains the commented teaching and how it sanctifies it? Of course, defenders of the interpretations we have outlined respond with sharp affirmativeness, emphasizing the presence of purely apostolic concepts in apocryphal contemplation. Despite all this, the matter here is far from being so simple as to rest on these assurances. Of course, we have evidence that the misfortune of the Egyptians is motivated by pseudo-Solomon through à ν á γχη, guessing about Stoic influences 14. However, others, even for the most typical passages, admit that the mysterious author hesitated between predestination and freedom 15. Nevertheless, from the totality of data, a predominant gravity should be revealed, and here the instability is successfully eliminated by the reconciling interpretation that in the death of the Egyptian persecutors (XIX, 4) the anonymous Jewish writer saw only a moral necessity arising from the entire situation into which they found themselves through their own fault 16 . Even based on these discrepancies, it is unshakable that the issue needs an impartial reconsideration. Let's look at it from its fundamental aspects. With absolute predestination, the activity of free will in shaping the future is excluded, since it is inevitable, apart from human will or obedience. Apparently, this is precisely the tone of pseudo-Solomon’s declaration (XII, 11) about the Canaanites that “their seed was cursed from the beginning” ( ἦϛ), and therefore (XII.10) “their race is worthless and their evil is innate and their thoughts will not change forever” κακία αὐτῶν , καί οὐ μὴ ἀλλα ϒῇ ὸ λο ϒ ισμὸ ϛ αὐτῶν εἰ ϛ τὸν αίώνα ). Here the heredity of sinfulness is stated, but this does not at all assert that everything was innocent in origin and discovery 17. On the contrary, it is said that God wanted to destroy “the inhabitants of His holy land” only because he finally “hated the hated deeds” of the terrible idol evil spirits (XII, 3–6). This was simply legal retribution and “neither the king nor the ruler is able to appear before the Lord’s eyes for those whom He destroyed,” for it cannot be proven that the trial was unjust (XII, 15, 14). The external one is commensurate with people’s own behavior and, assuming responsibility for depravity, thereby allowing for the possibility of correction. Therefore, retribution was not instantaneous, but Jehovah spared the Canaanites as people (XII, 8: άλλά καί τούτων ώ ϛ ἀνθρώπων έϕείσω), and little by little punishing them, they gave room for repentance (XII. 10: ϗ ρίνων ὸέ χατά βραχύ έὸίὸου ϛ τόνον μετανοία ϛ). Of course, the bright hope was actually unrealizable, but this depended solely on natural human inability, which was sane and not fatal. Naturally, God only knew in advance (XII, 10) the Canaanite worthlessness and did not in any way predetermine it fatally. Therefore, it is confessed with steadfastness that “He, being righteous, rules everything righteously, considering it unusual for His power to condemn someone who does not deserve punishment” (XII, 15). For Him, a beneficent goal reigns everywhere, which through gradual reproofs reminds those who are in error of their sins, so that they, having retreated from evil, may believe in the Lord (XII, 2). This principle was also applied with all evasiveness to the Egyptians, since they experienced God’s judgment after they had not come to their senses with accusatory ridicule and had themselves brought upon the final condemnation (XII. 26. 28). As a result of all this, we find that divine punishment strictly corresponds to human guilt and is entirely motivated by it. There is no place for blind and inexorable predestination. Rather, another feature that attracts attention is that malice is recognized as innate and the descendants mechanically assimilate the curse of the ancestral seed. An individual suffers a fate that is inevitable for him by belonging to a known national group. Predestination is transferred from isolated individuals to collective values ​​without losing its essential character. The whole task here comes down to understanding the reasons why the ancestral wickedness is necessarily transmitted to the idle generations and is certainly cultivated by them. Given the assumption of freedom for the moral structure of man, this seems absurdly incomprehensible. They guess that this oddity was not noticed by pseudo-Solomon and for it he would probably have appealed to the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul and would have referred to their peaceful fall 18. It is difficult to agree that this attempt will be satisfactory and dispel all the mystery. Perhaps even much greater perplexities are called it. Even if for the ancestor his destruction is explained by the pre-incarnate sinfulness of the soul, this in any case does not at all sanctify why the same thing falls on other further members. To do this, it will be necessary to accept the sameness of soulfulness itself, and this physically cannot be justified by transfer, which would always accompany the death of the giver and is not possible in relation to several subjects with many family details. We are forced to assume that each time a solemn pneumaticity is sent from above with equal consequences. This interpretation is completely fictitious, because it destroys the fact that is being commented on. Then it turns out that everything is determined by the uncontrolled disposition of the divine in rewarding the soul and national kinship does not play the most minimal role, since a certain order is established without any participation of genetic differences, which themselves acquire their typicality through the systematic invasion of a higher power of heavenly distribution independent of them. Sinful succession is not at all caused by racial kinship and only functions in this circle. The culprit again remains God and we will be with the same question regarding the real groundlessness of the predetermination, and this is rejected by the truth of God. It is obvious that the hypothesis is unsuitable and we need to return to the true view of pseudo-Solomon. He states that the Canaanite tribe is unworthy due to its innate malice, for it comes from an initially cursed seed and therefore is incorrigible forever. This affirms the natural hopelessness of the common fate for each individual, according to the very blood connection with the whole. This means that an individual suffers because of his national kinship and, with it, is certainly guilty, deserving proportional punishment. This causal relationship between nationality and sinfulness irresistibly convinces that the second continues only as long as the first persists and after that a completely different state of affairs is conceivable, with faith in God (XII, 2) and knowledge of Him (XII, 27). It follows from this that in a given nationality, as such, there is no true knowledge of God, meanwhile it is handed over to others and remains intact among the happy owners. Under such conditions, it is quite clear that when confined in a poisoned atmosphere, the harmfulness cannot be eliminated and damages everyone. But this commitment already serves as a sufficient basis for sanity, therefore, often, being innate, it is not at all insurmountable. On the contrary, a free transition to a fertile area is directly allowed, with confirmation for a person of the relative possibility of moral and religious self-determination. According to this, we must think that even at the beginning of the damned generation, the act of divine condemnation was built on a sufficient foundation of human criminality, as eloquently evidenced by the remarks of pseudo-Solomon about the origin of paganism. As a result, we have that the Jewish author limits pure religiosity to national boundaries and does not accept salvation outside of them due to the lack of ways to approach God. Obviously, this is the idea of ​​national election with the absorption of all privileges by the Jewish people, and here there is not the most insignificant Hellenistic influence, since such was the hope of the entire revealed Old Testament, that Israel was the exclusive custodian of true religiosity and the owner of saving promises. An anonymous writer maintains this view, although with shades of later rabbinic bias. Moreover, he does not profess individual pre-destinatism and, for the sake of the most pagan helplessness, it is admitted that through national donation to individuals it was quite possible to achieve deliverance from a fatal fate that was not averted by racial isolation. For all these reasons, the personality is not at all portrayed as weak-willed in the face of its fatalistic destiny and a despotic fate does not weigh over it. This concept also explains the view of the Book of Wisdom on ἀνά ϒ χη as a necessary disastrous outcome for some people. So it is mentioned about the Egyptians that they all suffered an inevitable fate (XVII, 16 [17]: ) the disasters of the heavy night, which transformed the darkness that had to embrace them (XVII, 20), only this was not created by them themselves, when, through their wickedness, they decided to oppress their people (XVII, 2). In this socio-political oppression for pseudo-Solomon there was a desecration and trampling of holiness itself due to intolerance towards it. Whether such a view is sound or erroneous is of no importance to us, but the only important thing is that with it the formidable visit of God turned out to be fully deserved. The continuation of the sad story speaks about this no less impressively. If the Lord did not take away the unmerciful wrath, extending it to the end, then only because of the foreknowledge of future deeds, in accordance with which righteous judgment befell the wicked (XIX, 1). The reason lay in the Egyptian cunning, that the tyrants, out of fear, having let the Jews go, repented of their own good (XIX, 2) and had another crazy thought ( ϛ) about the persecution of those released (XIX, 3). The Egyptians did not take into account their terrible fate, but it was proportional to their malice and perversity, which did not allow them to expect correction. This means that this was a fate worthy of the tormentors due to their sinfulness (XIX, 4: χη ). It is indisputable that the sad “necessity” is depicted in the book of Wisdom not in the spirit of determinism and is everywhere motivated by moral reference to hostility to the divine norms embodied in Israel. Naturally, the judgment (ή ὸίχη) is not fatal in nature, capturing those who speak lies (I, 8), persecuting for unreasonable thoughts (XI, 20 [21]. 16), accompanying the crime of the unrighteous (XIV, 31) and defeating malicious enemies who tortured the children of God and insulted through them the highest will (XVIII. 11). In all this, what is certain is the triumph of truth over falsehood, legitimate for the former and deserved by the latter. Then, as a result, the fundamental conviction is formulated that fatalistic predestinatism is impossible for God and the case of actual calamity testifies to the Lord’s fidelity to His essential dignity. From this side, “His power is the beginning of truth” (XII, 16). Therefore, the reverse application is impossible with dogmatic absoluteness and is excluded by fundamental religious principles. The Almighty and man relate to each other as Creator and creature, from which it follows that Jehovah’s hatred of His work would be an attack against Himself. It is natural that pseudo-Solomon denies this and appeals to God with joyful steadfastness: “You love everything that exists and do not disdain anything that you have created, for you would not have created it if you hated it. And how could anything remain unless you willed it? Or how would something be preserved that was not recognized by You? But You spare everything, because everything is Yours, O loving Lord” (XI, 25–26). The love of God embraces all existence and is incapable of anything contrary to itself. From this it is clear that evil is not predetermined and actually arises from deviation from divine plans 19 . And we saw that everything in the world was awarded the salvific quality of its inherent vitality (I, 14), and man was intended to be a reflection of divinity itself (II, 23); death entered later through the devil, and those who chose this destiny eat its fruits (II, 24), but God does not rejoice at the death of the living (I, 13). Consequently, the Almighty is not actively involved in the cosmic calamity that arose and established itself contrary to His plans, and this is already an imputed and punishable offense for violators of the primordial order. Here retribution is morally necessary for the punished and obligatory for the Creator in the interests of maintaining and protecting the inviolability of the holy ideal. In this we find the perfect justification for divine punitive pedagogy. It is clear, however, that this concern for true normality cannot only be negative and must be associated with the encouragement and patronage of religious correctness. Here is the reason that Canaan was given to the Jews, for they were the heritage of the children of God, worthy of God’s most precious land of promise (XII, 7). Therefore, we guess that the country itself enjoyed such goodness not without ethical considerations 20), since it was prepared and given as a reward to the deserving for their approval and encouragement. From all this it is clear that the Lord is only the guardian of the religious and moral order, where necessity is not at all fatal, but exclusively moral, which is required by the providential goals of protecting religious and ethical principles and their dominance over cosmic disorder. It is clear that this necessity will be moral and in empirical application, where it is fatal precisely because of its inevitability as a natural result of the human sinfulness that causes it. For all this, it is reasonable to reject the presence of the idea of ​​​​divine predestination in pseudo-Solomon 21), since he preaches the correspondence of fate with actual human behavior. The only limitation is that he associates holiness with nationality and depravity is predetermined nationalistically, but this confirms the fact of the delivery of true goodness to the Jewish people, which is why piety is unthinkable outside of it and without it. In this case, the author simply professes the biblical doctrine of the election of Israel to God's special destiny and does not reveal the slightest Hellenistic influences 22. We now have that pseudo-Solomon does not proclaim pre-destinatism and in this regard is alien to special Hellenistic hobbies. Naturally, he could not tell others, since he himself did not have such resources. Due to the strength of this, from a genetic point of view, the fundamental question does not arise, whether critics are not in vain looking for parallels for non-existent positions and whether they are not imposing St. Paul of the most tendentiously commented doctrine? Did the Apostle accept predestination? The answer to this may even eliminate the whole task of searching for sources and will take away from the convergence the characteristic sharpness of the arguments in favor of theories of material transformation in the apostolic system. In what light does this side appear before us? Church confessionalism of the Reformed has long included the Hellenic evangelist in the ranks of its guarantors and pillars, so methodical exegesis of this type is not surprising and harsh. Genetic observations, which acquired axiomatic indestructibility and did not fluctuate from differences in assessing the quality of a real phenomenon, coincide precisely with this. The majority assimilate the Apostle to rabbinical teaching, and some express that he “professed the Essene dogma of eternal predestination” 23 . But the result will always be solemn in its ideological content. It is not surprising that St. Paul is formally recognized as a predestinist to such an extent that this allegedly prevented him from drawing all the consequences of his belief in the universalism of salvation 24. The pressure was heavy if it constrained logic, and therefore for the Epistle to the Romans it is assumed that in it predestination is proclaimed in the sense of determinism 25. This created an insoluble antinomy to the concept of freedom 26, which lost its dignity of autonomous functioning and the uniquely achieved crown of its tensions. The inveterate detractor of the Hellenic missionary Revan, finds here ample food for his reproaches for the fact that “the writings of Paul were the cause of the main defects of Christian theology,” for “he was the father of the refined Augustine, the dry Thomas Aquinas, the gloomy Calvinist, the quarrelsome Jansenist, all the cruel theology that condemns and predetermines condemnation.” 27 This is stated according to attention to the “Pharisical-legalistic proposals of thinking and the Hellenistic-speculative direction of the spirit” of the Apostle 28. But these theoretical schemes were applied to the historical person of the divine Deliverer and had to be consistent with Christological concepts. In the latter, the cardinal thesis has always been the unshakable faith that the Lord saves solely by His infinite mercy and is not delayed by human sinfulness, the increase of which is caused only by the abundance of grace. With such hopes, fatalism would be absolutely unnatural. And in contrast to the genetic plausibility of the interpretations being analyzed, we get the dogmatic coercion of the opposite understanding. In this combination, attempts to adequately explain predestinary evidence become highly important. In the latter, the final results in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are first taken. Here we speak of pardon (ἐλεείν) and of blinding and hardening (σχληρόνειν or πωροῦν) not at all with deterministic absoluteness, for for the first, retribution for falling away is possible (vv. 21-22), and the second will continue until time (v. 25) unbelief (v. 23) and are not at all hopeless (v. 11), why all this applies exclusively to earthly historical acts, by which the future is determined in principle, but only by the consent of the human will and that means not unconditionally. It is equally characteristic and important that individuals are not actually touched upon and all the talk is about Jews and pagans in the sense of national groups, as they were formed in the historical world. Therefore, it is stated that the Apostle interprets “the rule of God, which has its causes and actions in time, in history, i.e. not about the super-historical, but about the internal-historical world-ruling leadership of God" 29 . Applying the key to other difficult places, they find that the predestination of the vessels of wrath is not confined to the moments before creation and during the creation itself, since the fate of empirical individuals 30 is revealed, which already in historical existence experience certain plastic modifications by their nature 31 . In this way it turns out that the contemplation of St. Paul moves in the field of history and in it directly presupposes the reality of human freedom 32. In general, everything focuses on the world-historical and world-governmental will of God, operating and implementing with the participation of human will and consent 33, when all fate is completely eliminated 34. This interpretation asserts that the Lord regulates the historical course and borrows from it all the motives for particulars in fulfilling his main intention. From this side, only the goals of industry are noticed and steadily achieved, meanwhile, for each individual, his own outcome is motivated solely by the totality of personal efforts 35. The innocence and unlimitedness of this judgment robbed the commented fact of its true mystery, which aroused such grave bewilderments, and this indicated that the sharpest and most incomprehensible features were being omitted from the subject. The scientific opposition bases its objections on this, citing the fact that the evangelist mentions free prehistoric divine predestination 36 , regardless of any actual conditions that appear later 37 . The free absoluteness of God is revealed in the form of a dual authority - without consideration of human properties and for the sake of discovering divine mercy and divine omnipotence 38. But here lies the explanation of the whole problem. The entire emphasis falls precisely on the truth of God’s benevolent influence 39 in the implementation of the highest plans of saving pardon, which is projected and undertaken on the exclusive initiative of the Almighty and historically consolidated in spite of cosmic and individual deviations 40 . In this case, for a specific person, predestination is already contained in the very norms with the help of which divine salvation functions and which no earthly being can either avoid, suppress or overcome 41 . In this interpretation, the accusations of fatalistic predestinatism are also removed from the Apostle, for we see that only paths with their inherent results are predetermined, from which the truly divine is achieved in addition to and even in spite of world anomalies. Here the dominant tone of the apostolic “apocalypse” in the complete goodness and absolute freedom of divine providence is correctly and successfully captured, but precisely what was recognized as insufficient in the previous hypothesis is not touched upon, since it is not revealed to us why and how a private person chooses one path and not another. Then we will have no answer to the most important question in the whole question: is there a fatal necessity here and is individual freedom allowed? Let us look at parsing texts from this special point of view. The object of all the thoughts of St. Paul is served by Israel and in relation to it it is considered whether the sovereign election has been violated, since the people reject the saving faith, although it was intended for them. Is there any instability here, exposing the fragility of divine covenants? At this point all the apostolic reflections are concentrated and in them the fundamental thesis reads (Rom. IX, 6): not as the Word of God fell away. It all boils down to the fact that God is immutable in His favor towards the Jews. While the opposite is found, this does not in the least refute the defended doctrine. 1) Of course, now the pagans enjoy redemption more, but the Israelites are not limited to the circle of Abraham’s fleshly relatives, since his very seed was unconditionally according to the promise of God, from which it follows that the true offspring must be the promised ones (IX, 6-9) 42 . 2) Therefore, it is certain that, arranging everything from Himself, God is not bound by human activity and freely prefers Jacob to Isaac even before their birth, and raises up Pharaoh for the visual sanctification of His power through his destruction (IX, 10-18). 3) If in all this both the goal and the means are from the Lord, then in the face of such absolutism not the slightest protest is permissible, especially since mercy is shown towards the vessels of wrath for the sake of the glory of those called upon (IX, 19-24). 4) Therefore, it is normal and in accordance with divine predictions that the Almighty is not constrained by carnal rights and, in the spirit of His promised freedom, does not yet deliver all the Israelites, allowing the predominance of the pagans (IX, 25-33). All this sufficiently protects the legality of the acceptance into the kingdom of Christ of non-Jews in accordance with the principles of the promised order itself, which extends to the Hellenes only because they accurately satisfied its requirements. Now it is indisputable that 5) the reason for the Israeli deprivation must be in themselves and lies in the fact that this people did not comprehend the essence of their promised advantage and renounced its fundamental norms, as was again provided for by Scripture (X, 1-21). 6) According to the said concept, that Jewry itself is guilty of its misfortune, and therefore one cannot think that God irrevocably and indiscriminately rejected his people: on the contrary, the example of Paul himself testifies that deliverance is still available for the members of Israel and in it lies the sacred guarantee of the possibility of insight and conversion by the grace of God 43, which eliminates the proud exaltation of blessed paganism (XI, 1-24). 7) But since Israel's blindness rests on personal human sinfulness, in this case correction is quite conceivable. This means that the present bitterness is temporary and the Lord, using it for the highest interests of universal remembrance, will then reach the crowning of the promises of election, when salvation will not be received by one or another individual believing Jew, but all Israel will be saved, like Israel (XI, 25 ff.) 44, which, by virtue of its Israeli aspirations, confesses its own triumph in Christ, the only true one and corresponding to its real dignity, when those who persist will already be exceptions in contrast to the current sporadic nature of Jews being saved 45 . From this condensed overview, that divine plans are always accompanied by adequate success, since they are entirely based on the absolute will of God, from which all plans, impulses and means are derived. The energetic and detailed defense of this thesis convinces that theoretically the Apostle himself did not deny the possibility of objections that have real support for themselves. All this directly speaks to the evangelist’s conviction that there is a factor that has the ability to independently control itself with partial violation of the general divine plans. It is therefore irresistible that St. Paul departs from a categorical confession of individual freedom, since with the assumption of pre-destiny fatality, the very question of God’s faithfulness to Himself would not arise, if realization is created by Him unconditionally and precisely for the sake of realization. Here deviations would be simply unimaginable to the most minimal extent, yet they are recognized with the fundamental limitation that, despite their historical indisputability, the final goals certainly receive their inherent triumph. Hence we find that the whole task was excited and complicated by the dogmatically affirmed potentiality of the opposition of free human will with the contrast of divine command. This first observation is important for understanding the structure of apostolic considerations, but it does not yet eliminate all difficulties, since it is easy to accept that even these cases of free abnormalities are intended by the Lord. At this point it is extremely expensive that St. Paul, with all his apology for divine autonomy, without hesitation presupposes real actual historical collisions with the nature of an undoubted collision, for otherwise such phenomena would be illusory in their opposition. Therefore, his reasoning is conducted in the tone that the truthfulness of God is preserved in the purest integrity despite possible historical obstacles. In such a connection, the latter exist and are depicted only as the most striking illustrations of the supremacy of the divine and are sanctified solely from the side of this relationship, where only the negative moment of the inviolability of God’s intentions through them is reflected to us, why the positive should be sought in their own character for possible antitheticality or in the free self-determination of people. In general, this means that human freedom does not change the divine will when it is discovered, since the latter was motivated from itself without the participation of realistic external motivations, and these include our free activity, which naturally does not shake the divine plans independent of it. Now we find that divine exclusivity is confined entirely to pre-eternal providential plans and nothing more is evidenced about its implementation than that historical figures by their will in no way alter the desired outcome and rather certify the supreme immutability. It is clear that the Apostle’s language starts from the recognition of human freedom and uses this to convince him that divine promises are irresistible, since they are predetermined by the wisdom of God, without any outside agency and are created by divine power, which cosmic limitations cannot delay or shake. It is clear from everything that predestination extends to divine providential ideas and does not abolish human freedom, although it is taken away from it the unusual role of regulator of God’s destinies. With these fundamental premises, particular examples acquire true proportionality to such data, which do not reveal themselves or the objects of their class, but serve more to highlight in relief the nature of laws of a higher order. Let's look at them briefly from this point of view. Not all Israelites are saved, and this is not surprising, for the privilege of Abraham's descendants does not rest on the flesh at all, since the seed of heirs for the benefits of the patriarch was raised up according to the word of promise. The origin of Isaac (Rom. IX, 7–9) suggests that God acts without active human participation and himself causes the process that then occurs in human forms (conception, fruiting and birth). Here the human will was subordinated to the divine and served its interests. Naturally, in this case, the result is not determined by human intrusions and depends only on God. A new predicate is added to the previous thought, that not just the initiative, but even the very completion is entirely rooted in the Lord. A clear confirmation of this is the story of Rebecca (Rom. IX, 10 ff.), about whose children, even before they were born, it was said that the Almighty preferred Jacob to Esau, with the enslavement of the elder to the younger, while both of them came from common parents and, before the prophecy of God, did neither bad nor good. It is clear that here the Almighty could not be guided by the actions of the brothers, and then it is irresistible that He is based on His own will in fulfillment no less than in destiny. This is expressed by the formula (Rom. IX, 11-12): that according to election the offer of God may remain, not from works, but from Him who calls. This parathentic remark extracts a principled aspect from a fact taken which is merely illustrative. Here ι has energy that is not actually goal-directed and rather only logically demonstrates that the prophetic foreshadowing was allowed so that the defended thought was indisputably protected by the anticipation of its justification, and not then, as if the event itself had taken place for it. This means that Jehovah in advance granted dominion to the few and hated the big, but this does not at all suggest that they received certain qualities solely to reinforce divine foresight. This is not said and it would be more reasonable to conclude the opposite, because with the opposite understanding there would not be the required confirmation if the implementation is already contained in the project itself. Empirical certification for an idea occurs only where it is not created by it itself. In this spirit, the analyzed texts objectively state that what happened was foreseen in advance, and this does not at all affect the question of the method of implementation and justifies the absolute autonomy of God, not constrained by human activity 46 . Accordingly, the emphasis does not concern the historical fulfillment and rests on the moment of the prediction, but the latter is cited to sanctify divine independence and therefore guarantees the specific property of the inviolability of its exact application. The reasoned thesis is characterized in this dignity as θεοῦ ). Since it is interpreted about the preservation of μένη and, of course, the rogue tone, then πρόθεσι ϛ refers to the above-mentioned “proposal”, which was crowned contrary to carnal Jewish hopes. Consequently, here predestination only signifies that everything happens only according to promise and is drawn directly from God, from His saving grace. Here the Lord Himself predetermines His own work as applied to people, and not their future attitude towards Him. Since an object remains unchanged, qualities are retained with it, which again we are obliged to look for in its previous description 47 . Therefore, έχλο ϒ ή emphasizes the very method of choice, that it is not made according to carnal claims and is normalized according to the promised requirements, understandable from the contingent of participants in Abraham's heritage among the believing pagans 48 . This is what faith will be. For the general salvific decision, it serves as a method of its achievements and it causes an actual grouping among people who have not been awarded and deprived of the cherished benefits. It is self-evident that all this reveals to us the fundamental principle of the nature of the promise, that it remains inviolable in comparison with its very origin, when everything arose from the (will) of the Caller, and not from works that have not yet happened 49. For fulfillment, the result is no more than that in it we must expect equal non-conditionality from God, even if it is accompanied by fruits worthy of it. In this regard, it is successfully emphasized that έχλο ϒ ή, indicating the (subjective) preference on the part of the voter, does not at all deny and rather allows for the (objective) chosenness of the preferred 50. However, this has not yet been directly communicated and the entire speech suggests that the saving “offer” of “election” through faith, without consideration of the imaginary compulsoryness of human exploits, is born and must be implemented solely by the will of God. But in fact, not everyone is being saved now, and this arouses alarming bewilderments about whether God has a lie here and, of course, in what we would like to see is the opposite of what happened, which does not seem to justify its ideal destiny. At this point the apostolic contemplation turns to the consideration of the historical realization of God's saving plans. According to them, the Jews thought that being the chosen ones, they would all be saved by their own merits, but in fact there is a quantitative limitation and their very legal support is rejected. Is this not a contradiction to the covenant with the people of Israel? St. Paul responds with a categorical negative and, first of all, defends himself (Rom. IX, 14. 15) with biblical authority (Ex. XXXIII, 19) that such a selection procedure is not new and was sanctioned even before the Jewish legislator 51. Then another truth equally inevitably emerges, that in this area everything is only about pardon, which by its very nature is irreconcilable with pretension and depends not on desire or zeal, but solely on the good will of the merciful God (Rom. iX, 16). This judgment is confirmed (Rom. IX, 17) by contradiction by reference to Scripture (Ex. IX, 16), where we read that the Lord raised up Pharaoh to demonstrate His power through him and to proclaim His name every day. The stubbornness of the Egyptian tyrant contributed to the divine purposes and by its compliance with the latter convinces that it was according to the will of God, whence it follows that, being the Lord of mercy, the Most High also hardens whomever he wants. The inseparability of the formula from the historical example forces us to compare the energy of the first nature of the second, and here it is expressed that the omnipotence of God was revealed through overcoming the pharaoh's power, which for this very reason turns out to be hostile to the supreme commands. Then the whole importance of this episode is exhausted by the formula that even human confrontation is subject to divine applications, contributing to them most clearly if it is more formidable and intense. This decisively accepts the presence of human freedom with its own self-determination for evil, and the whole influence of the Lord will be in the fact that He pushes such a subject to a height that allows him to reveal his ugliness in all the brightness. All these properties were in it earlier and now only receive the worst use from a collision that might not have happened 52. In this case, the bitterness on God's part is covered by the fact that His saving plans are often carried out under unfavorable conditions and provoke fierce opposition among them, while this would not have happened under a happy coincidence. However, experience shows that from such collisions only blindness comes divine triumph, and therefore we must think that it also appears by the will of God. Jehovah hardens (Rom. IX, 18) only in the sense that in the historical process of gracious pardon he allows His will to cross with human malice, which inevitably increases in intensity. It goes without saying now that this dogmatically recognizes human freedom and protects the truth of imputation 53 . For all this and despite human autonomy, the Almighty remains faithful to His absoluteness and everywhere achieves the necessary supremacy. The end of considerations justifies its beginning, for we have that God is independent and acts on his own initiative at all stages of good providence, in the very emergence of an idea, in clarifying the ways of its practical consolidation and in historical implementation. With such unlimited divine innocence, it seemed logical that since everything is from the Lord, then humanity is innocent in the grave anomalies of historical cruelty, where everything happens according to the divine dispensation. This was a hypothetical result from the totality of all previous thoughts 54 and his Apostle emphasizes (Rom. IX, 19) with a possible objection that under the described conditions there is neither reason nor material for the reproaches of people, since they are deprived of both the means and ways to escape from God, Who has mercy on some, but in others aggravates their existing depravity. The question concerns already imputed human guilt, which became doubtful after the described actions of God. This task, apparently, followed completely legitimately, and yet it was unnatural in its very content and contained an internal falsity. Wanting to relieve himself of responsibility, a person attracts the Almighty to it by paying attention to His boundless supremacy. But this is the greatest absurdity to demand an account from the Absolute Ruler on the basis of one’s complete insignificance 55 . Isn’t the deadly incongruity of internal incompatibility obvious here? It is necessary either to reject divine absolutism, in which case all reasons for bewilderment about human sanity will disappear, or, when confessing the absolute power of God, people are fundamentally deprived of any right to interrogate on this subject. And the second was argued earlier with inviolability. Consequently, the competitor turns out to be not authorized even to state his claims and in this case is likened to a product that is incompetent to judge the creator, because the potter has the power to dispose of the clay for the use he pleases (Rom. IX, 20.21). According to this connection, it is irresistible that with this illustration of St. Paul uses it only for the strictly special purpose of convincing him of the inadmissibility of human claims to God 56 . It is obvious that in the analyzed text it is not noted at all that this is exactly what God’s attitude is always, with equal human passivity, differing in ready-made forms. The Apostle does not at all express similar conclusions, and in him we find a completely different application. He distinguishes (Rom. IX, 22-23) two classes, of which primarily those called σχεύη όρ ϒ ῆ ϛ, preserved to detect the wrath of God. This means that these are not vessels that happened out of anger and for the sake of anger, but those on which divine wrath falls, why they are worthy of this fate 57 by their very real qualities 58 . As soon as this is true and God’s judgment is in fact righteous and correct, then it is revealed that these persons, according to their religious and moral level, deserved only divine indignation and therefore were committed to destruction (χατηηρτισμένα εὶ ϛ ἀπώλειαν). “Destruction” characterizes the degree of real human depravity that provokes the wrathful rebuke of God and historically necessarily precedes the intervention of divine wrath. It is clear that destruction was not prepared by the latter, for it motivates him by suggesting that vessels of this kind were vessels (deserving) of wrath, as being suitable for destruction. Their “perfection” determines the completeness of the corresponding sinful development, which has reached full adaptation to a destructive fate. The reasons for the origin of this state are not stated directly, but they are understandable from the legality of angry gravity in one’s own human guilt 59 . This interpretation is required by the grammatical phraseology itself, where (through perf. ἤ νε ϒ χεν and χατηρτισμένα) we are shown the already concluded historical fact of the wrathful rejection of those who hitherto enjoyed great mercy 60 . Everyone agrees that the Israelites are meant (cf. 1 Thess. II, 16) and regarding them, hardly anyone will dare to defend, as if the Apostle Paul considered them created by God for destruction, when all the advantages of divine election and preference are learned to them. By the force of this, it is irrefutable that they themselves prepared themselves for destruction and through this aroused the wrath of God. It also comes out in contrast, because the “vessels of mercy” embrace those who have been awarded it, and not those created by it, and there would be no mercy given the exact proportionality of the object with the idea that produced it. From all sides it is ensured that the evangelist does not at all attribute the fate of the perishing to divine predestination and rather emphasizes their personal guilt. Therefore, the illustration of the potter does not apply directly to humanity and is a support for new applications. It is not difficult to understand them by the logical movement of all moments. Since God is absolute in His thoughts and man is insignificant, then why do human anomalies exist and are supported? Even if they do not interfere with the implementation of divine plans, is this still not enough to understand the reasons why the Lord “carried through much long-suffering” vessels of wrath throughout history, although the opposite would have been fitting for them? Is there any sense in such a successful jumping over obstacles and wouldn’t it be better to avoid the latter? To this the Apostle responds that even such phenomena have a blessed purpose and the Lord deigns to preserve them until time, wanting through them to show his anger into intolerance of sin and power in retribution. Here evil itself serves for the good, although not for the wicked themselves, while long-suffering provides them with all the opportunities for correction and salvation. However, the evangelist most closely solves the problem of theodicy through the justification of God’s world rule in view of the historical deviations that outwardly violate it, and here he puts forward responsible human freedom everywhere, for it determines both the anger and clarity of divine revelations, which derive their impressiveness from the fact of collision with confrontation. The complete wisdom of divine providence is no less indisputable in the application of this mercy to the sanctification of pardon, because subjectively unjustifiable long-suffering testifies to the inexhaustibility of divine goodness. Naturally, the leniency for sinners applied to those who are being delivered will be an incomparable glorification, which is poured out on the vessels of mercy from Jews and Gentiles (Rom. IX, 25). For them, the motivation seems completely special. These are such vessels that God’s entire attitude towards them rests solely on divine mercy. According to the very dignity of the latter, it is necessary that here it is not permissible to talk about the factual grounds that cause and regulate divine care. In this case, everything depends on the Almighty. But if the whole reason for merciful condescension is in the Lord, then He, of course, also determines the very sphere of the real manifestation of divine mercy. This means that the Almighty is the exclusive decider that mercy is poured out on certain subjects who, on this side, are predestined from above, apart from the participation of their will. Here, predestination is indisputable, only all its power is commensurate with the idea of ​​pardon in the direction that since all action is deigned by God himself, then the scope of the spread of activity must be rooted solely in divine destiny. Thus, this predestination first of all rejects its own human influence, which is not allowed in any concrete fact. Persons are always passive and unworthy recipients of saving goodness, which is why their receipt of it is entirely based on divine initiative. People are not predestined for pardon or for pardon, because, being adapted to this, they were not absolute vessels of mercy. Predestinatism extends only to the method of gracious pardon, where human humiliation irresistibly convinces that God Himself has chosen the objects of merciful glorification. It was not directly up to them to become true vessels of mercy, and in this capacity they were prepared by the Almighty for the purpose in question, which corresponds precisely with their negativity, since in the absence of the slightest human merit no one would be legally capable of divine goodness, and now, being exclusively merciful, it captures even the most wretchedness in its sphere. Here it is not existence that is predetermined, but the action of God in it, since one cannot speak of merits for lack of them. God has predetermined that there will be creatures that will be worthy of His mercy. In this formulation, all predestination is covered by the confidence that such an environment will certainly occur historically. In turn, this simply states to us that not everyone will be forgiven for their destruction. The first proposition will be an inevitable conclusion from the second and expresses that God limited his destructiveness to the class of stubborn provokers of anger; since human energy is not inexhaustible and in the development of evil is constrained by the inclinations of goodness of God-created nature itself, it was categorically predetermined that in humanity there would be enough of those who would be worthy of divine mercy without any merit of their own. Being is predetermined not through abolition, but precisely through the affirmation of human freedom. There is not the slightest predestination here and it only concerns the fact that for the fundamental demands of pardon, as not humanly conditioned, there will be a contingent of unworthy people who are nevertheless capable of accepting the divine gift. Through this it was destined that the method of Divine pardon would be consistent with its essential properties. In this sense, predestination is entirely confined to the Divine idea and guarantees its adequate historical implementation. In fact, Divine predestination is revealed in a historical setting and in it ensures all the inviolability of Divine absolutism. Therefore the Apostle describes historical events according to their agreement with the sovereignty of God. And the grammatical structure really testifies that having communicated His mercy, God thereby (cf. Rom. VIII, 30) prepared (προητοίμασεν) those favored for their inherent glorification, in which capacity and for what purpose He chose believers from Jews and from Gentiles (Rom. IX, 24) 61. It is indisputable that at this point the whole process is covered by the granting of a generous reward according to the absolute good pleasure of God and therefore does not affect human freedom, which predestination does not violate, as it presupposed it in the matter of the subjects of divine pardon. The human will remains inviolable, since predestination simply expresses only the essence of divine mercy, which, without being determined by people, it itself provides for its recipients and, by its application, predetermines their glorious fate. True, this does not clarify the reason for such an election, but firstly, there was no confusion at all about the pardon and the whole difficulty was reduced to the incomprehensibility of destructive bitterness, and then it was indirectly noted that those who were certified did not close for themselves the sources of divine goodness with their resistance. Of course, this does not yet guarantee them the right to mercy, but the appearance of legal claims in this area are fundamentally inappropriate and are completely out of the question. When all inquisitiveness is directed towards the rationality of such an order of divine pedagogy and through this kills itself, because it forces one to doubt the wisdom of God. Therefore, about the crown of divine providence, we must think that there will be the greatest manifestation of the divine mind and goodness of God. Here the theoretical disclosure of the subject reaches its completion and we do not need to analyze the apostolic reasoning about historical reflections in the fate of Israel. The extracted content contains everything necessary for understanding the dogma itself. By all considerations, St. Paul is evidenced that he actually wanted to illuminate the painful mystery of Israeli history and convince of the immutability of God’s advice, since the Lord is absolute in his mercy and always achieves it to the predetermined degree in spite of all sorts of realistic deviations, which will therefore be contrary to divine commands. This clearly presupposes human freedom, only for it, in fact, only guilt turned out to be possible, but not deservedness, encroaching on the divine autocracy. The latter, without suppressing human abnormalities with its triumph apart from them, focuses entirely on the sphere of the promised pardon and protects its immutability precisely by the fact that in it God acts from himself and is not externally motivated at all. This is evident because the idea of ​​pardon arises independently on an exclusive divine initiative, which predetermines the methods and its very implementation. With such innocence of divine autonomy, a person cannot help but lay claim to the Almighty and must believe in the greatest reasonableness of His providence in the actual discovery, accompanied by the disintegration of humanity into two camps, perishing and being saved, since the first incur wrath upon themselves and, with their stubbornness, further obscure the Divine power, and the second draw even mercy itself solely from the mercy that is prepared for the entire future. On this side, predestination refers to the essence of Divine pardon, as an all-perfect free Divine act and characterizes its nature as unlimited goodness, where everything is from God and through God. As for the actual realization, here too the entire course is predetermined in advance by Divine absoluteness in the dignity of its immutability and self-fidelity. For this reason, in the historical process, predestination extends only to the action of the Divine factor and states that in its very nature its victorious march is predetermined in accordance with the idea. What is indisputable about human participation from here is that it can neither delay nor accelerate Divine guidance, which is created exclusively on the energy of God. In this sense, no more than a negative result is required and obtained, that humanity does not interfere with the Divine functioning, ensured by its independent content. This means that for historical realization we still have that it takes place outside of cosmic convention and in spite of actual abnormalities. But this activity is designed for people and tends to their benefit. From this subjective point of view of fruitfulness in the human sphere, another interpretation is valid, that here everything happens in consideration of historical agents 62 in which the sad fact of a hopeless falling away is stated, although this should not be taken as a surprise to the divine will, why it uses such aberrations for its own purposes. Human freedom is clearly allowed, but it is not able to motivate divine absoluteness and has only one potential - maintaining the ability to perceive divine grace, which continues to be not caused by factual data. In this regard, predestination speaks only about the fact that there is a sinful humanity in the world that has not completely perished and is therefore worthy of divine mercy. To extend it to private individuals would be unnatural, because a subject predestined for mercy would be deserving of pardon, which would destroy all the difference of the latter, where the entire human role is reduced to obedient and reverent assimilation, which again affirms a certain human freedom. Then it turns out that even in its actual manifestation, predestination is embraced precisely by pardon and does not capture those who have been pardoned, because their existence does not correspond to the greatness of pardon and could not be caused by it. Ed. Grafe in Theologische Abhandlungen C. v. Weizäcker gewidmet, S. 286 O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 162 O. Pfleiderer, Der Panlinismus S. (27–28). "Zur paulinischen Prädestinationslechre, die ubrigens im pharisäischen Determinismus ihre Wurzeinhat, bieten die Stellen Sap. 15, 7 und 12, 10 ff. so auffallende Parallelen, dass wir an direkte Aulehnung denken müssen." Wed. and Rev. Prof. William Sunday and Rev. Arthur C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 268. Prof. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie II, S. 167: "Kann aber hier die Entlehnung nicht zweifelhaft sein, so ist an einem der hervorragendsten Höhepunkte der paulin. Gedankenwelt die hellenistische Proveninz derselben erwiesen und darf daraus eine Bestätigung fur unsere Beurtheilung des Paulinismus uberhaupt eutnommen warden” Dr. August Wunsche, Der lebensfreudige Jesus der sinoptischen Evangelien im Gegensatze zum leydenden Messias der Kirche (Lpzg 1876), S VII-VIII. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S 28 (see page 6). †August Sabatier, L'Apôtre Paul, p.31 (Paris 1881) p. 34(ibid. 1896). Prof. Arthur Titus, Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit II, S. 38. H. J. Holzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie II, S. 169 O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 283 AnmI (Berlin 1902), S. 311 Anm: “Seine (des Paulus) Prädestinationslehre ist, ebenso wie seine Gesetzeslehre, nichts anders als ein ins Gegentheil umgeschlagener Pharisäismus.” Der Paulismus, S.267 Anm: “Seine Prädestinationslehre ist, wie im Grunde auch seine Gesetzeslehre, die in’s Gegentheil umgeschlagene, autijudaistisch gewendete Theologie des Pharisäismus.” H. J. Holzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie II, S. 167 Ed. Grafe in Theologische Abbandlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gewidmet, S. 265. 266. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Psycholosophie, S. 193. A.Fr. Gfrorer, Philo und die judisch-alexandrinische Theosophie II, S. 251 t. J.Fr. Bruch. Die Weischeits-Lehre der Hebraier, S. 370: “Wenn er (Pseudo-Salomo) 19, 4 von einer Nothwendigkeit spricht, welche die Aegypter in ihren Verfolgungen gegen die Israeliten bis zum Extreme fortgerissen habe, so versteht er sicherlich darunter nur eine sittliche Nothwendigkeit, hervorgeganger aus dem ganzen Zustand, in welchen sie, durch ihre Schuld, verfallen waren.” See also pp. 523–524. James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 195 See above about Pr. Sol. I, 13. 14. II, 23. 24. On pp. 504 words 512 words James Drumwond, Philo Judaeus I, p.208, is somewhat inclined towards this. See James Drumwond, Philo Judaeus I, p.192 sqq. And above on pp. 520, 521 W. E. Ball in vain leans (St. Paul aud the Romao Law and other Studies, p. 176) to the judgment that the New Testament reveals the Old Testament doctrine of election (in the spirit of St. Isaiah), but with reflections of the concepts of the book. Enoch (“explaned and exemplified in the pages of Enoch”) A.Fr. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II (Stuttgart 1838), S. 125 Otto Riehmann, Die Lehre von der Apokatastasis (Magdeburg 1889), S. 30. Otto Schraider according to lectures by Prof. Jul Kaftan states (Die Lehre von der Apokatastasis, Berlin 1901, S.44) that “das ist Prädestination im Sinne des absoluten Determinismus.” According to F. C. J. van Goens, the Apostle Paul proclaims absolute, personal predestination (La role de la liberté humaine daus la predestination paulinienne in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” XXVII [Lausanne 1884], p. 231 suiv.) and unconditional (p. 238 suv. 244) in contrast incompatibility of freedom with grace (p. 242. 246. 252 suiv. 254 suiv257 suiv). And Prof. Paul Feine sees pre-destinatism in Romans IX-XI (Die Erneuerung des paulinischen Christentums durch Luther. S. 18). †Carl Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus II (Berlin 1898), S. 17. Ernest Renam, Saint Paul (Paris 1869), p. 570 Otto Schröder, Die Lehre von der Apokatastasis, S. 45. † Prof. W. Beyschlag, Die paulinische Theodicee Römer IX-XI (Halle a. S. 1895), pp. 24–26. W. Beyschlag ibid., S. 26ff. W. Beyschlag ibid., S. (55)56. W. Beyschlag ibid., S. 62: “der ganze Gedankenhaut des Apostels, indem er sich auf dem Gebiet der Geeschichte bewege, selbstverständlich auch die Realität der menschlichen Freicheit voraussetze” W. Beyschlag ibid., S. 74: Paulus “redet eben voin weltgeschichtlichen, weltregimentlichen Willen Gottes, der die menschlich Freiheit nicht zur Concurrenten, condern zuin weschtlichen Material seiner Verwirklichung hat.” W. Beyschlag ibid., S. 75. The meaning of Beyschlag's attempt is correctly and clearly revealed by Johannes Dalmer (Die Erwählung israels nach der Heilsverk ῦ ndigung des Apostels Paulus, G ῦ tersloh 1894, S. 18) in the spirit that “das Interesse, welches man daran hat, die Wabl Gottes erst innerhalb der Geschichte vjllzogen zu denken, liegt darin, dass dann die Möglichkeit zu bleiben scheint dass geschichtliche Ursachen bei der Erwählung mitgewirkt haben könnten.” Prof. E. Kũhl, Zur paulinischen Theodicee (Röm. 9–11), Göttingen 1897, S. 4–5 and in Theologische Abhandlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gewidmet, S.53–54 E. Kũhl ibid., pp. 21–2270–71. E. Kũhl ibid., S.44. 4593. 94 E. Kũhl ibid., S 9. 10. 1158. 59. 60. E. Kũhl ibid., S.38–3987–88 Since only the children of promise belong to the “seed” (Joh. Dalmer, Die Erwählung Israel nach der Heilsverkundigung des Apostels Paulus, S. 8. 10), why “die leiblichte Nachkommtn Abrahams haben als solche kein Aurecht an das Erbe” (S. 9), from this point of view, of course, the pagans are even less able to be a “seed” (S. 9), but joining the latter is not closed to them, since this is not an exclusively national privilege, but St. Paul, in agreement with Christ, decisively eliminated all nationalistic pretensions of Judaism (see also Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things, London 1904, p. 62) Joh. Dalmer rightly notes (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 80) that in the speech about the preservation of the remnant, the actual mercy of God is put forward, since the Almighty saves it in spite of the prevailing disobedience. Wed. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 335. Joh. Dalmer, believing that in Rome. XI, 15, we are not talking about the conversion of all (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 90), but only of individual Israelis (S. 91), I am ready to limit everything to “blessed actions” in the continuation of these particular cases of the Jews accepting Christianity (S. 94); further it is concluded that Rom. XI, 26 also does not apply to all of Israel and, perhaps, embraces only the remnant (S. 118), and “through the elimination of bitterness, the gap that occurred among the people is destroyed” (S. 119). Of course, the most important thing is the principle, but in it the corresponding factual justification is necessarily conceived and, therefore, sufficiently proportional in quantity. However, it is not at all asserted that then almost all of Abraham’s present descendants will turn to faith, and therefore there is no need for a special appearance of Christ only for the Jews before the Second Coming for the whole world, which idea has no unshakable exegetical justification, although it is also allowed by Fr. Archpriest P. A. Smirnov in the treatise: Conversion of Jews to faith at the end of centuries; see fifth edition of works (Sib. 1903), pp. 71. 75. In this sense, μενη matters, of course, not for one. We consider it more likely that τοῦ θεοῦ refers not to χατ ’ έχλο ϒ ήν, but to πρόθεσι ϛ: in the latter, in any case, the only essential thing is that this proposal is precisely God’s and, therefore, has all the divine guarantees of its own fulfillment. We find no reason to agree with Joh. Dalmer, as if in the apostolic argument there is no hint of justification for preaching to the pagans (Die Erwählung Israel. S. 3, 68), who are opposite St. Paul clearly puts forward his emphasis on Israel's lack of rights. According to Joh. Dalmer’a, by ἡ χατ ’ ἑχλο ϒ ήν πρόθεσι ϛ there is of course an assumption regarding election, and χατ ’ έχλο ϒ ην denotes the subject about which this “will of God” was, and its content is noted only with the words ούχ έζ έρ ϒ ων , ἀλλ ’ ἐχ τοῦ χαλοῦντο ϛ (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 13). Here the whole phrase reads like this: (a predetermination was made about the fate of the sons of Rebekah before their birth) so that the proposal regarding election [or having election as its object] would not be from the work, but from the Caller. In this case, it remains unclear why the assumption must invariably have only these properties and cannot have the opposite properties. For this, the reason must be in the very essence of the act, from which corresponding detections are inevitable. For these reasons, we think that χατ. ἑχλο ϒ ήν characterizes the nature of πρόθεσι ϛ’a as divine; everything further determines the necessary and normal method of implementation. Then the thought will be that historical events were [arranged in a certain way] so that the assumption of election, which is entirely exhausted precisely by the predicates of God’s elective freedom, was revealed actually by the will of the Caller, and was not the merit of human exploits. This also highlights the essential feature of Christianity, that in it the deity is an absolutely free being or an absolute spirit, while in paganism it was depicted as not completely free: Prof. Dr. Adolf Wuttke, Geschichte des Heidenthums in Beziehung auf Religion, Wissen, Kunst, Sitthchkeit und Staatsleben I (Breslau 1852), S. 19. See Joh. Dalmer, Die Erwählung Israels, S. 15. In the same sense, “hatred” is illuminated as an act of the divine will of rejection (S. 14), why Jacob’s preference will already be election to salvation (S. 16). Actually about the words of Malakh. I, 2 see and in the study of prof. P. V. Tikhomirova, Prophet Malachi (Trinity-Sergius Lavra 1903), pp. (575, 578–579) See Joh. Dalmer, Die Erwählung Israel, S. 21, and cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 253–254. Therefore Joh. Dalmer proposes (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 23) the idea of ​​the rise of a pharaoh in the following form: “ich habe dich bestellt, angestellt.” Wed. and W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 255–256. Wed. Prof. E. Menegoz, La predestinanion dans la theologie paulinienne in “Revue de theologie et de philosophie” XXVII (Lausanne 1884), p. 506 suiv. So does Prof. Bernh. Weiss, that with predestination in St. Paul's responsibility is no less certain (Die Religio des Neuen Testaments, S. 228 ff). At this point Joh. Dalmer successfully emphasizes that the Apostle says σχληρύνει, and not χαταχρίνει (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 25–26), even though the former happened according to the will of God (S. 27), and bitterness would not have followed if there had been no sin before (S. 28). Joh. Dalmer correctly sees a Christian objection here (Die Erwählung Israel, S. 49), but contrary to him (S. 30) the latter extends not only to Rome. IX, 18. Joh. Dalmer also notes (Die Erwählung Israels, S. 31) that God, as Creator, is above all objections, and Lic. Johanannes Albani believes that the example of the potter is used by the Apostle Paul to argue ad absurdum: see Die Parabel bei Paulus in “Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie” XLVI (N.F. XI), 2 (1903), S. 161-162. Similar thoughts are found in the (dubious) conversation of St. I. Chrysostom about the Canaanite woman and Pharaoh and on the words of Rom. IX, 16. where we read that Rom. IX. 20 “this is not yet an answer, but first of all, indignation at those who dare to demand from God,” in order to “curb the insolence of human frivolity, which so decisively demands from God an account of His affairs,” and “the Apostle showed and taught that he should not demand an account from God, using in this case the words of God spoken through the prophet Isaiah” (XLV, 9) regarding clay and the poor; only “having finished with the censure, Paul proceeds to explain, so that you can be convinced that he did not utter these words to support his opponents: whoever you are, rebuke God, but in a fit of indignation” (Migne gr. LIX, col. 658. 659. Creations VIII, St. Petersburg. 1902, pp. 834. 835–836). Wed. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romous, p. 261. Wed. and Joh. Dalmer, Die Erwählung Israels, S. 36 Wed. at St. I. Chrysostom that “a person becomes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor not according to the will of God, but depending on his own order.” “God knows everything in advance, precisely knows: he does not himself determine the future, but by advance knows what should be and will be.” “God knows which soul is suitable for pardon, which is worthy of punishment, not because it was created that way, but because it has prepared itself for this by its habits,” and for the words vessels of wrath are perfected for destruction, “it must be borne in mind that improvement is a matter of the will, and not of nature” (Migne gr. LIX, col. 659. 660. 663. 664. Creations VIII, p. 836. 837. 841–842). Joh. Dalmer relates these speeches to the earthly rejection of Israel (Die Erwählung Israela, S. 40. 46), whereby, according to the 28th verse, God reduced the accounts (S. 53). The phrase here is grammatically incorrect and it is usually (cf. Lk. XIX, 41. 42 . John VI, 61. 62 . Acts XXIII, 9 ) that it is left without apodosis (W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans p. 260–261), but Joh. Dalmer arranges it (Die Erwahlung Israels, S. 48–49) as follows: άλλα χαί έ ϛ οθνών. What comes out is a complete thought: “He (God) called such (the justified) not only from the Jews, but also from the pagans, in order to reveal the riches of his glory,” etc. Here the construction is somewhat violated, contrary to the immediate energy, in the undoubted connection of verse 23 with 22, in any case no less than with 24. Agreeing with the first interpretation, we think that verses 22 and 23 are parallel to each other, although the second already contains some shade of conclusion, and verse 24 indicates to whom exactly the rational action is applied. And grammatically and logically, all these parts are mutually composed, but not subordinate. In this sense, there is no doubt that the fulfillment of divine plans according to their actual means is consistent with the historical situation, and therefore is realized with limitations and gradualism. Wed. Prof Joh Dalmer, Zur Paulinischen Erwahlungslehre in Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen Hermann Cremer dargeptacht (Gutersloh 1895). S 202 You might be interested in: