Understanding Calvinism. Appendices

March 31, 2026

Westminster Confession of Faith

Table of Appendices

I have edited some of the text from ChatGPT, but not the quotes and references.

Appendix A: Manichaean and Gnostic Interpretations of John 6.

Appendix B: Compared to Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6.

Appendix 1: Romans 8:7-8

Appendix 2: Ephesians 1:4–6

Appendix 3: Romans 8:29-30

Appendix 4: Romans 9:11-13

Appendix 5: Romans 9:15-16

Appendix 6: Romans 9:11-13 and 9:15-16.

Appendix 7: Romans 9:11-16. Historical Quotations:

Appendix 8: 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Appendix 9: 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Historical Quotations: Early Church Fathers, Gnostic, and Manichaean Sources

Appendix 10: Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria on Election and Predestination

Appendix 11: Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-6. Historical Quotations:

Appendix 12: Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6 Compared to Manichaean and Gnostic Views

Appendix 13: Romans 8:32–34

Appendix 14: Isaiah 53:11-12. Interpretations Across Christian Traditions

Appendix 15: John 17:11-12, 24. Perseverance of the Saints

Appendix A

Manichaean and Gnostic Interpretations of John 6. Election, Predestination, and Foreknowledge.

Scripture (KJV)

Key verses often debated in John 6 include:
John 6:37 – “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
John 6:44 – “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him at the last day.”
John 6:53-54. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Introduction and Disclaimers

This report surveys Gnostic and Manichaean understandings of election, predestination, and foreknowledge as related to John 6. Because neither tradition preserved detailed verse-by-verse commentaries, the interpretations presented here are reconstructed from primary sources and scholarly analyses. Direct quotations are included where extant; interpretive parallels are clearly labeled.

I. Manichaean Perspectives

In Manichaean theology, reality consists of two opposing principles: Light and Darkness. The ‘elect’ belong to the realm of Light and are destined for liberation through divine knowledge and ascetic practice. The concept of ‘drawing’ or ‘coming to Christ’ in John 6 would therefore be interpreted metaphysically rather than morally—those who are ‘drawn’ by the Father are Light-beings returning to their origin.

Franzmann, *Jesus in the Manichaean Writings*: “Some of the Manichaean elect are also called shepherds of the Light‑Herd… Jesus the Splendor as the shepherd who seeks the Living Soul in the world.”¹

Ibid.: “Believers felt they could call upon Jesus constantly for help… ‘Jesus, my true guard… Firstborn of the Father of the Lights, mayest thou guard me.’²

Gardner & Lieu, *Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire*: “For he will not be received to the Light because he is a stranger to it… for he is not of your elect nor will he follow your path.”³ This worldview implies a form of predestination based on metaphysical nature: those who belong to Light will inevitably return to it.

II. Gnostic Perspectives

Gnostic cosmology, as represented in texts like the *Apocryphon of John* and *Tripartite Tractate*, likewise teaches that salvation is the awakening of divine sparks within humans who belong to the spiritual (pneumatic) race. The ‘drawing’ by the Father in John 6:44 would thus represent the awakening of gnosis, the remembrance of one’s divine origin.

*The Gospel of John and the Gnostic Myth of Redemption*: “From a Gnostic point of view, the soul of man was a splinter of light trapped on earth… Knowledge (gnosis) was the way to salvation… Jesus was seen as a teacher of light – one who reminds people of their true spirituality.”⁴

Tripartite Tractate (Nag Hammadi): “Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material.”⁵ Only those of the spiritual order are capable of responding to divine revelation—paralleling John 6:65: ‘no one can come unless it is given him by the Father.’

Theodotus (Valentinian fragments, via Clement): “Those called ‘Jews inwardly’… are the pneumatic elect… They alone worship the one God.”⁶ This expresses the belief that the elect are defined by their divine essence rather than moral behavior.

*The Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John)*: “The Savior taught about the root of the universe… and about those who are called the perfect, that they may be united with the Father.”⁷ This reflects John 6’s theme of divine drawing and unity with the Father through Christ.

III. Interpretive Synthesis

Both Manichaean and Gnostic systems interpret election and foreknowledge as metaphysical realities rather than acts of divine will in time, much like hyper Calvinism does. In both, the ‘elect’ are those of the Light or pneumatic essence who are awakened by Christ the Illuminator. Human response plays little to no role; the process is one of cosmic restoration rather than moral conversion, much like Calvinism. By contrast, early orthodox interpreters saw John 6 as describing divine grace that calls the believer to faith, not a deterministic return of Light to its source.

Endnotes

1. M. Franzmann, *Jesus in the Manichaean Writings* (Gnosis Library Edition, 2003), p. 15.

2. Ibid., p. 22.

3. Iain Gardner and Samuel N. C. Lieu, *Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 87, 102.

4. ‘The Gospel of John and the Gnostic Myth of Redemption,’ *Stottilien.com* (2017).

5. *Tripartite Tractate* (NHC I,5) 62:30–63:5, trans. H. W. Attridge and D. Mueller, in *The Nag Hammadi Library*, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1988).

6. Theodotus (Valentinian fragments), *Excerpta ex Theodoto* 22.1, cited by Clement of Alexandria; see Elaine Pagels, *The Gnostic Paul* (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 58.

7. *The Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John)*, trans. Frederik Wisse, in *The Nag Hammadi Library*, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1988), II.5–10.

Appendix B

Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6 Compared to Manichaean and Gnostic Views

I. Augustine’s Background in Manichaeanism

Before his conversion to Christianity, Augustine spent approximately nine years as a ‘hearer’ within the Manichaean sect. During this period, he absorbed the dualistic worldview that divided reality between Light and Darkness. The Manichaeans taught that certain souls (the ‘elect’) were literal fragments of Light trapped within material bodies, destined to return to their source through ascetic practices and knowledge. After his conversion (c. 386 AD), Augustine vehemently rejected this metaphysical dualism, affirming that evil was not a substance but the absence of good (*privatio boni*). Nonetheless, his later doctrine of predestination, especially his interpretation of John 6, bore structural similarities to the determinism of his former sect. (See my articles on Augustine for more information.)

II. Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6

Augustine comments on John 6 extensively in his *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, particularly Tractate 26 (on verses 44–45). He insists that the ‘drawing’ of the Father (John 6:44) is not coercion but an internal transformation wrought by divine love:

“Do not think that thou art drawn against thy will; the mind is drawn also by love… This drawing is not outward constraint, but inward delight.” (Tractate 26.2 ¹)

In this sense, grace moves the will from within. Yet Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian writings (e.g., *On the Gift of Perseverance* and *Enchiridion*) interpret John 6:37-44 as evidence for divine predestination: only those whom the Father has eternally chosen will come to the Son. Faith itself, he insists, is the gift of grace rather than the result of human decision. This is most clearly part of the foundation of Calvinism.

III. Comparison with Manichaean and Gnostic Interpretations

While Augustine rejected the dualistic cosmology of Mani, his later doctrine of irresistible grace echoes some structural features of Manichaean and Gnostic determinism. The following table summarizes key contrasts and continuities:

Theme	Augustine’s Interpretation	Manichaean View	Gnostic View
Nature of Election	God’s eternal decree; individuals are predestined to faith and salvation.	Ontological: souls of Light predestined by nature to return to the Father of Light.	Pneumatic souls are inherently elect by nature; psychic/hylic souls cannot be saved.
Drawing of the Father (John 6:44)	An act of efficacious grace that infallibly produces faith (‘drawn by delight’).	Inherent pull of Light back to its source.	Awakening of the divine spark through gnosis.
Human Will	Free but enslaved without grace; freedom restored only through predestining grace.	Essentially powerless; bound by material darkness.	Only pneumatics possess true freedom; others remain bound to ignorance.
Foreknowledge	God foreknows because He predestines; His will determines events.	The Father of Light foreknows which fragments will return.	The Father knows which emanations will awaken and ascend.
Evil and Reprobation	Evil is privation of good; reprobation is non-granting of grace.	Evil is an independent substance of Darkness.	Evil is ignorance or material bondage.

IV. Key Quotations from Augustine

• “No one can come unless drawn … Do not think you are drawn unwillingly; the mind is drawn by its desire.” (*Tractates on John*, 26.2)¹
• “Faith is the gift of God; not all men have faith, because not all are drawn.” (26.4)²
• “Those whom the Father gave to the Son, none of them perishes … for they are drawn by the Father by His grace.” (*On the Gift of Perseverance*, 14–16)³
• “Those who are called according to His purpose are made to will and to do by the power of the Spirit.” (*Enchiridion*, 98)⁴
• “Their error was that they made the soul part of God, bound by necessity in evil; but we confess it is created and freed by grace.” (*Against the Manichees*, I.2)⁵

V. Summary Assessment

Augustine’s mature theology of John 6 transforms the Manichaean and Gnostic doctrines of cosmic determinism into a doctrine of divine grace and election. Where the Manichaeans saw the elect as ontological entities of Light and the Gnostics as pneumatic souls, Augustine redefines election as an act of divine will within a single, good creation. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the irresistible nature of grace effectively reintroduces determinism in theological rather than cosmological terms. You might want to read that again. Augustine brought paganism into Christian theology.

Endnotes

1. Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, Tractate 26.2, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Ser. I, Vol. VII.

2. Ibid., Tractate 26.4.

3. Augustine, *On the Gift of Perseverance*, ch. 14–16.

4. Augustine, *Enchiridion*, 98.

5. Augustine, *Against the Manichees*, I.2.

Appendix 1 Romans 8:7–8. Interpretations Using the King James Version

Scripture (KJV)

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Romans 8:7-8 (KJV)

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists understand this passage as proof of total depravity and spiritual inability, that fallen man is incapable of submitting to God or pleasing Him apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin wrote: “Men’s minds are wholly alienated from the righteousness of God; hence the flesh cannot but hate Him. Until the Spirit of God renews the heart, there can be nothing in man that is not at variance with God.”

In this view, ‘carnal mind’ refers to unregenerate humanity, and ‘cannot please God’ expresses moral and spiritual inability. Only through sovereign regeneration by the Spirit can one become subject to God’s law.

II. Arminian and Non-Calvinist Interpretation

Arminians agree that the carnal mind is opposed to God, but deny that this means absolute inability to respond to divine grace. They teach that prevenient grace restores the sinner’s ability to repent and believe.

John Wesley commented: “The carnal mind is enmity against God—So long as it continues carnal, it neither is nor can be subject to God’s law. Yet through the grace of God it may cease to be carnal, and become spiritual.”

Thus, Arminians interpret Paul’s statement as a description of the person who persists in living by the flesh, rather than as an unchangeable condition. Grace makes repentance and spiritual renewal possible for all. I think a better way to understand this is that ability is a level playing field, which I suppose might be considered grace. However, some of us believe that a level playing field is justice, not grace.

III. Early Church Fathers (Before Augustine)

Before Augustine’s theology of inherited guilt, early Christian writers viewed this passage in moral and practical terms. They saw the carnal mind as a matter of moral corruption and passion, not total inability. All that is contrary to Calvinism.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD): “The carnal mind, remaining without the Spirit of God, cannot please Him. But those who receive the Spirit are no longer carnal, but spiritual, because of obedience.” (Against Heresies 5.9.2)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): “Those who live according to the flesh cannot please God, for they do not obey His commandments; yet by discipline and faith, the carnal is subdued to the spiritual.” (Paedagogus 1.6)

Origen (c. 185–254 AD): “The carnal mind is that which is ruled by the senses; it is not subject to the law of God because it seeks its own pleasure. Yet by repentance and the exercise of virtue, one may come to be spiritual.” (Commentary on Romans)

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD): “He does not mean that nature is evil, but that the man who chooses to live after the flesh cannot please God. It is not necessity, but choice, that makes him carnal.” (Homilies on Romans 13)

Athanasius (c. 296–373 AD): “Those who are carnal live in the passions of the body and are alienated from the Spirit; but through the Word they are called to holiness and may become spiritual.” (Letters to Serapion 1.24)

IV. General Early Church Understanding

The early fathers interpreted ‘the carnal mind’ as a moral condition characterized by disobedience and sensuality. They taught that though such a man cannot please God while remaining carnal, he can be transformed through repentance, obedience, and divine grace. They rejected the idea of total inability or predestination. Amen to that.

V. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist – The carnal mind = fallen nature; inability to please God without regeneration.
• Arminian – The carnal mind = sinful disposition; cannot please God while persisting in sin, but grace enables change.
• Early Church – The carnal mind = moral corruption; alienated from God until repentance and moral renewal through grace.

Appendix 2 Ephesians 1:4-6. Interpretations using KJV

Scripture (KJV)

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved”. Ephesians 1:4–6 (KJV)

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists interpret this passage as teaching unconditional election: that God, before the foundation of the world, chose specific individuals for salvation purely according to His sovereign will, not based on foreseen faith or works.

John Calvin wrote: “God, by His eternal and immutable counsel, determined once for all whom He would one day admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction. He chose not because of any merit in them, but according to His secret will.” (Institutes III.21.5)

Calvinists emphasize that election is personal, eternal, and unconditional. Those chosen are predestined to adoption and holiness. Faith itself is the result of God’s prior choice, not its cause.

II. Non-Calvinist / Arminian Interpretation

Arminians and other non-Calvinists affirm divine election but understand it as corporate and conditional. God’s eternal plan centers on Christ as the Elect One; all who are ‘in Him’ by faith share in that election.

Jacob Arminius wrote: “God regards no one in Christ unless they are believers. The decree of election regards believers as such; it is therefore conditional.”

John Wesley commented: “God hath chosen us in Christ, as believers in Him. He hath predestinated all such to adoption and holiness. Not that God has arbitrarily appointed any man to damnation.”

Thus, election is ‘in Christ’ and concerns the destiny of those who freely respond to God’s grace. God’s predestination is His foreordained plan to adopt and sanctify believers, not an unchangeable decree over individuals.

III. Early Church Fathers (Before Augustine)

Before Augustine’s later doctrine of unconditional election, early Christian writers saw this passage as teaching God’s gracious purpose and foreknowledge, not arbitrary predestination or election based on God’s decrees

. They emphasized human cooperation with divine grace. Salvation is conditional, contrary to Augustine and Calvinists.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD): “Those who believe in Him are chosen before the foundation of the world, for God, foreknowing all things, prepared His gifts for those who love Him.” (Against Heresies 4.6.1)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): “The Lord desires all men to be saved… but they who obey are counted worthy of election. Those who choose to follow Him are chosen through their own faith.” (Stromata 7.7)

Origen (c. 185–254 AD): “God chose those whom He foreknew would believe and be holy. Thus election depends not on a bare will, but on foreknowledge of faith.” (Commentary on Romans, fragment)

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD): “He hath chosen us in Him — that is, through faith. For it is faith which unites us to Christ. Therefore, the choice is not without our will.” (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 1)

Athanasius (c. 296–373 AD): “The Word predestined us to adoption by grace when we were created in Him; for He was foreknown as the foundation of the world, and we in Him were made sons by faith.” (Against the Arians 2.75)

IV. General Early Church Understanding

The early Church Fathers saw election as Christ-centered, moral, and cooperative. God foreknew who would freely believe and live in holiness. Predestination referred to His eternal plan to save and sanctify believers, not to an arbitrary decree over individuals.

V. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist – Election is individual, unconditional, and sovereign; faith results from God’s eternal choice.
• Arminian – Election is corporate and conditional; believers are chosen in Christ through faith.
• Early Church – Election is foreknown and moral; based on faith, obedience, and cooperation with divine grace.

Appendix 3

Romans 8:29-30. Interpretations using KJV

Scripture (KJV)

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified”. Romans 8:29–30 (KJV)

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists see this passage as the ‘Golden Chain of Redemption’ — an unbreakable sequence of divine acts that apply exclusively to the elect. God’s foreknowledge is understood as His eternal love and choice of specific individuals, not mere foresight of human decisions.

John Calvin wrote: “Paul teaches that all whom God has elected He has also effectually called to salvation. This foreknowledge is not bare prescience, but the adoption by which He has always distinguished His children from the reprobate.”

Calvinists understand ‘foreknow’ as ‘fore-love’ and ‘predestinate’ as God’s determination of the elect’s destiny — to be conformed to Christ. The calling is effectual, the justification guaranteed, and glorification certain. Human faith is the result of God’s predestining grace, not its cause.

II. Arminian Interpretation

Arminians interpret ‘foreknow’ literally — God’s knowledge in advance of those who would freely respond to His grace in faith. Predestination, then, concerns the destiny of those foreseen as believers, not an unconditional decree over individuals.

Jacob Arminius wrote: “The decree of predestination to salvation is founded upon the foreknowledge of God, by which He knew from eternity those individuals who, through His preventing grace, would believe in Christ.”

John Wesley added: “Whom He foreknew as believers, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. The decree is not arbitrary but gracious, conditioned on faith.”

Thus, Arminians see this as describing God’s eternal plan for believers — foreknown, predestined to holiness, called through the gospel, justified by faith, and glorified if they persevere in Christ.

III. Other Christian Interpretations

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions emphasize synergy between divine grace and human freedom. They affirm predestination but reject the idea of double predestination or compulsion of the will.

St. John of Damascus wrote: “God predestines no one to evil; He foreknows all who will love Him and prepares glory for them. His foreknowledge does not compel their will.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II.30)

St. Thomas Aquinas explained: “Those whom God foreknew would believe and persevere, He predestined to be conformed to Christ.” (Summa Theologica, I.23.5)

Thus, both traditions maintain that predestination is rooted in divine foreknowledge and cooperation with grace.

IV. Early Church Fathers (Before Augustine)

Before Augustine, the early Fathers viewed this passage as teaching God’s foreknowledge of believers and His purpose to glorify those who freely respond to His call. They denied fatalism and upheld human freedom.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD): “God hath foreknown all things, but His predestination is for those who believe, whom He hath prepared to be conformed to the image of His Son.” (Against Heresies 4.6.1)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): “Believers are called according to God’s purpose, for He knew before the foundation of the world who would be just. For faith and choice are ours, but the grace is of God.” (Stromata 6.17)

Origen (c. 185–254 AD): “Whom He foreknew would not reject His calling, He predestined to be conformed to His Son. Thus the cause of predestination is in those who are willing to receive it.” (Commentary on Romans, fragment)

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD): “He did not say He chose them because He foreordained them, but because He foreknew them. For it is not God who makes them such, but He who foreknows what they will choose.” (Homilies on Romans, Homily 15)

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457 AD): “Foreknowledge is the cause of predestination, not the other way around. For God foreknew the free choice of those who would believe.” (Interpretation of Romans 8:29)

V. General Early Church Understanding

The early Fathers understood predestination as God’s eternal plan to glorify believers, based on His foreknowledge of their faith and perseverance. They rejected the notion of unconditional election or reprobation, teaching instead that human freedom cooperates with divine grace.

VI. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist – Foreknowledge = fore-love; predestination is unconditional, leading inevitably to the salvation of the elect.
• Arminian – Foreknowledge = foresight of faith; predestination is conditional upon belief and perseverance.
• Orthodox/Catholic – Predestination is based on foreknowledge and cooperation with grace.
• Early Church Fathers – Predestination follows foreknowledge; God foreknew who would freely believe and predestined them to glory

Appendix 4 Romans 9:11-13. Comparative Interpretations (KJV)

Scripture

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:11-13 (KJV)

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists read Jacob/Esau as concrete individuals exemplifying God’s unconditional, pre‑temporal election. The contrast underscores that the decisive ground is God’s call, not works or foreseen merit. “Loved/hated” signals personal covenant acceptance/rejection.

John Calvin (Commentary on Romans 9): “The difference between men does not depend on their merits, but on the secret counsel of God… His mercy is free, and His hardening is righteous.”

II. Arminian (Non‑Calvinist) Interpretation

Arminians interpret this as corporate/vocational election of the covenant line (Israel over Edom) unto service, not an eternal decree of two infants to heaven/hell. Participation in blessing remains conditioned on faith (cf. Rom 9:30–33; 11:20–23).

John Wesley (Notes on Romans 9): “The Apostle speaks of the calling of nations, and the terms of that calling… Mercy is free, yet offered to all through Christ.”

III. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

Orthodox teaching stresses synergy. The idiom “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” marks divine preference in the economy—ordering salvation‑history—while personal salvation still involves cooperation with grace.

IV. Early Church Fathers (Greek Tradition)

Chrysostom (Hom. on Rom. 16–18): Blessing is by promise and God’s choice, not by birth order; free will is not abolished; unbelief excludes, repentance restores (cf. Rom 11).

Origen (Comm. on Rom. 9, frags.): “God hardens by forsaking the one first hardened by his own wickedness.” Preference for Jacob serves the plan leading to Christ.

Theodoret of Cyrus (Interpretation on Rom 9): “ ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ expresses preference in the dispensation; foreknowledge is the cause of predestination.”

V. Gnostic Tendencies

Gnostic systems typically construed “elect” ontologically (pneumatic seed vs. psychic/hylic). Applied to Romans 9:11-13, Jacob/Esau would be symbols of fixed natures rather than free moral response—an essentially deterministic reading rejected by catholic Fathers.

VI. Manichaean Interpretation

Manichaeism’s cosmic dualism (Light vs. Darkness) fosters a quasi‑fatalistic reading: Jacob aligned with Light, Esau with Darkness; election as fate more than grace. Patristic writers consistently opposed this determinism and upheld freedom and repentance.

VII. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist: Individual, unconditional election; Jacob/Esau as persons; sovereign preference.
• Arminian: Corporate/vocational election; participation by faith.
• Eastern Orthodox: Divine economy with synergy; freedom preserved.
• Early Fathers: Promise over works; foreknowledge with freedom; often corporate/typological.
• Gnostic/Manichaean: Deterministic/ontological readings (non‑catholic; rejected by Fathers).

Appendix 5 Romans 9:15-16. Comparative Interpretations

Scripture (KJV)

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” Romans 9:15–16

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Mercy’s bestowal is sovereign and particular. Neither human decision (“willing”) nor effort (“running”) causes salvation; the decisive cause is God’s gratuitous mercy (Exod 33:19). Effectual calling and justification arise from this free determination.

II. Arminian (Non‑Calvinist) Interpretation

Grace, not effort, originates salvation, yet God has appointed faith as the genuine condition for receiving mercy. Paul contrasts grace with works‑righteousness, not grace with faith. Prevenient grace enables all to respond.

III. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

God alone is the source of mercy; human striving cannot compel it. Yet salvation is synergistic: grace empowers cooperation; hardening is permissive/medicinal and oriented toward repentance (cf. Rom 11:23).

IV. Early Church Fathers (Greek Tradition)

Chrysostom: excludes boasting and legalistic works while preserving freedom and the call to faith. Origen: God’s freedom in mercy is affirmed; He shows mercy to the penitent, while abandonment follows prior self‑hardening. Theodoret: divine initiative exalted, not fatalism; foreknowledge grounds predestination.

V. Gnostic Tendencies

Gnostic readings would hear “I will have mercy…” as confirmation that mercy belongs to the pneumatic seed by nature; human choice is secondary to ontological status—minimizing free will (rejected by the Fathers).

VI. Manichaean Interpretation

Manichaeans would align mercy with the Elect (Light‑particles) and read ‘not of him that willeth nor runneth’ as negating free will, supporting a fated deliverance of the Light—contrary to catholic and Orthodox insistence on freedom and repentance.

VII. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist: Mercy sovereignly and particularly bestowed; will/effort not decisive.
• Arminian: Mercy originates in God; received by faith (enabled for all), not by works.
• Eastern Orthodox: Grace is primary; synergy preserves freedom; hardening is remedial.
• Early Fathers: Divine initiative with freedom; mercy to the penitent; abandonment to the self‑hardened.
• Gnostic/Manichaean: Deterministic/ontological emphases, minimizing freedom (non‑catholic, rejected).

Appendix 6

Romans 9:11-13 and 9:15-16

Comparative Interpretations

Scripture (KJV)

Romans 9:11–13

“(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Romans 9:15–16

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists read these verses as strong proof of unconditional, individual election. God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, before their birth, is taken as a concrete example of sovereign election “not of works.” Verses 15–16 show that salvation depends wholly on God’s free mercy, not on human will or effort, and that His effectual call and hardening infallibly achieve their ends.

John Calvin (Commentary on Romans 9): “The difference between men does not depend on their merits, but on the secret counsel of God… His mercy is free, and His hardening is righteous.”

II. Arminian (and broader Non‑Calvinist) Interpretation

Arminians hold that Romans 9 addresses God’s sovereign right to define and advance His redemptive plan through the covenant line (Israel → Messiah), not a decree fixing individuals’ eternal destinies irrespective of faith. Jacob/Esau are read corporately (Israel/Edom) and vocationally (service within the plan). Mercy is sovereign but given on the gospel condition of faith, which God enables for all (prevenient grace). Hardening is judicial of persistent unbelief and can be reversed upon repentance (cf. Rom 11:23).

John Wesley (Notes on Romans 9): “The Apostle speaks of the calling of nations and the terms of that calling… Mercy is free, yet offered to all through Christ.”

III. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

Orthodox theology emphasizes synergy: God’s sovereign initiative orders salvation history, yet human freedom is absolute. “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” is treated as an idiom of preference for a role in the economy (the covenant line) rather than a decree of damnation. God’s “hardening” is permissive and medicinal, intended to lead to repentance over time; those who turn are grafted in (Rom 11).

St. John of Damascus (paraphrase, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II.30): “God predestines no one to evil; He foreknows and prepares good for those who freely love Him. His foreknowledge does not compel the will.”

IV. Early Church Fathers (Pre‑Augustine/Greek Fathers), Notes & Quotations

• John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans, Hom. 16–18): “Paul shows the blessing came by promise and God’s choice—not works or birth—yet he nowhere abolishes free will… God’s wrath is seen when men refuse to believe, and His mercy when they repent.”

• Origen (Commentary on Romans, fragments on Rom 9): “God hardens by forsaking the one who first hardens himself… ‘I will have mercy’ declares the freedom of divine goodness, yet He shows mercy to those who turn to Him.”

• Theodoret of Cyrus (Interpretation on Romans 9): “ ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ speaks of preference in the dispensation, not of the creation of vice… Foreknowledge is the cause of predestination.”

• Cyril of Alexandria (Glaphyra; scholia): treats Jacob/Esau typologically within the economy leading to Christ; the preference serves salvation-history rather than signaling an absolute decree over individuals’ eternal states.

V. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist: Unconditional, individual election; Jacob/Esau as persons; mercy/hardening as unilateral and effectual; salvation not of willing/running.
• Arminian: Corporate/vocational election serving the promise; mercy sovereign yet conditioned on faith (universally enabled); hardening judicial and reversible.
• Eastern Orthodox: Sovereign initiative with synergy; preference for roles in the economy; hardening permissive/medicinal; all may be grafted in by repentance.
• Early Fathers: Promise over works; foreknowledge with freedom; Jacob/Esau often corporate/typological; hardening tied to prior unbelief, not imposed irresistibly.

Appendix 7 Romans 9:11-16. Historical Quotations: Early Church Fathers, Gnostic, and Manichaean Sources

Scripture (KJV)

Romans 9:11-13: “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Romans 9:15-16: “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

I. Early Church Fathers

The Early Church Fathers interpreted Romans 9 in ways that emphasized God’s foreknowledge and moral justice while preserving human freedom. They often opposed fatalistic readings and understood election as consistent with divine foreknowledge.

John Chrysostom (Homily 16 on Romans): “What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? … It was because one was wicked, and the other good… He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such.”¹

John Chrysostom (Homily 16 on Romans): “When he says, ‘it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs,’ he does not deprive us of free‑will, but shows that all is not one’s own, for that it requires grace from above.”²

Origen (Philocalia 27.13): “God’s purpose is merciful; but the hardening is a result thereof, through man’s inherent wickedness, and God is therefore said to harden him that is hardened.”³

Theodoret of Cyrus (Commentary on Romans 9): “God… predicted [the difference] from foreknowing their dispositions, for election is not arbitrary, but in accordance to the disposition of men.”⁴

II. Gnostic Sources

The Gnostics (2nd–3rd centuries) often interpreted scriptural passages about election and mercy through an ontological framework. They divided humanity into three types—spiritual (pneumatic), psychic, and material (hylic)—suggesting that salvation depended on inherent spiritual nature rather than faith or moral response.

Tripartite Tractate (Nag Hammadi Library): “Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material.”⁵ This teaching underlies the deterministic anthropology of Gnosticism: only the spiritual are destined for salvation, while others remain bound to ignorance or matter.

Theodotus (Valentinian fragments, cited by Clement of Alexandria): “Those called ‘Jews inwardly’… are the pneumatic elect; they alone worship the one true God.”⁶

III. Manichaean Sources

The Manichaeans (3rd–5th centuries) developed a strict dualism between Light and Darkness, portraying salvation as the release of Light‑particles from matter. They rejected the notion of human free choice in favor of a cosmological determinism.

Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire (Kephalaia): “For he will not be received to the Light because he is a stranger to it.”⁷ Here, salvation is restricted to those whose nature belongs to the realm of Light, rather than being dependent on repentance or faith.

Manichaean Mission Discourses: “For he is not of your elect nor will he follow your path.”⁸ This reveals their belief that election was metaphysical—based on the substance of one’s soul—not moral or spiritual choice.

IV. Comparative Summary

• The Early Church Fathers—such as Chrysostom, Origen, and Theodoret—emphasized divine foreknowledge, human freedom, and moral responsibility. They interpreted Paul’s statements as consistent with God’s justice and grace.

• Gnostics treated election and mercy as reflections of pre‑existent spiritual natures, producing a deterministic view incompatible with Christian doctrines of free will.

• Manichaeans radicalized this determinism, viewing salvation as cosmically fixed: only the Elect (Light) would be liberated, while others were bound to Darkness.

These contrasts highlight the early Church’s insistence that Romans 9 teaches not arbitrary predestination but a moral and relational interaction between divine grace and human will.

Endnotes

¹ John Chrysostom, *Homily 16 on Romans*, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series I, Vol. XI, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889), available at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm.

² Ibid., comment on Romans 9:16 (“not of him that wills nor of him that runs”).

³ Origen, *Philocalia* 27.13, in *The Philocalia of Origen*, trans. J. Armitage Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893). Available via Tertullian.org.

⁴ Theodoret of Cyrus, *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, trans. Robert C. Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), comments on Romans 9:11–13.

⁵ *Tripartite Tractate* (Nag Hammadi Codex I, 5), trans. Harold W. Attridge and Dieter Mueller, in *The Nag Hammadi Library*, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 62:30–63:5.

⁶ Theodotus (Valentinian fragments), cited by Clement of Alexandria, *Excerpta ex Theodoto* 22.1, in *The Gnostic Paul*, Elaine Pagels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 58.

⁷ *Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire*, ed. and trans. Iain Gardner and Samuel N. C. Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 87.

⁸ Ibid., p. 102 (Mission Discourses).

Appendix 8 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Scripture (KJV)

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

I. Calvinist Interpretation

Calvinists interpret this passage as affirming unconditional, individual election to salvation. God’s choice ‘from the beginning’ refers to His eternal decree to save specific individuals through sanctification and faith, both of which are effects of His sovereign will.

John Calvin (Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:13): “He connects the beginning of our salvation with the election of God, that believers may learn to ascribe the whole of their salvation to God alone. The Spirit sanctifies, and faith is wrought in the elect, according to His eternal purpose.”

Thus, Calvinists conclude that election is personal and eternal; faith and holiness are fruits, not causes, of election or conditions of salvation that man must meet.

II. Arminian Interpretation

Arminians affirm divine election but insist it is conditional on faith. The verse describes how God’s eternal plan of salvation is realized in those who freely respond to His grace. Sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth are the means by which God’s purpose is fulfilled, not the results of an irresistible decree.

John Wesley (Notes on the New Testament): “God hath chosen you, believers, to salvation: not arbitrarily, but through faith and holiness, which are the appointed terms. This election is conditional, not absolute.”

Jacob Arminius (Declaration of Sentiments): “Election to salvation is made in Christ, and regards believers as such, not those who are yet unbelieving; for God has decreed to save those who would believe and persevere in faith.”

III. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

The Orthodox understanding emphasizes synergy: God’s initiative and human cooperation. God’s choosing ‘through sanctification and belief’ reflects both divine grace and human participation. The phrase ‘from the beginning’ refers to God’s eternal loving purpose, not to an unconditional decree about individuals.

Theophylact of Ohrid (Commentary on Thessalonians): “He chose us, not by compulsion, but as those who willingly receive the Spirit’s sanctification through faith; for God’s foreknowledge knows who will choose Him.”

Therefore, Orthodox interpreters understand this verse as expressing God’s loving initiative and humanity’s free response through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

IV. Early Church Fathers (Before Augustine)

Early Fathers understood 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as emphasizing God’s foreknowledge and grace in harmony with human freedom. They consistently taught that faith and holiness are necessary responses to divine grace, not irresistible gifts given to a few.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD): “God has chosen those who love Him and keep His word, through the Spirit’s sanctification; for He foreknew those who would believe.” (Against Heresies 4.6.1)

Origen (c. 185–254 AD): “Those who by faith receive the Spirit are chosen unto salvation, for God foreknew who would believe and who would harden themselves.” (Commentary on Romans, fragment)

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD): “He shows that both things are of God: the calling and the sanctification; yet he adds ‘through belief,’ teaching that our faith also cooperates.” (Homily on 2 Thessalonians 2)

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457 AD): “He chose them from the beginning, not without foreknowledge, but foreseeing that they would receive the preaching and be sanctified by the Spirit.” (Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13)

V. Summary Comparison

• Calvinist – Election is personal, unconditional, and eternal; faith and sanctification are results of God’s decree.
• Arminian – Election is conditional and corporate; believers are chosen ‘in Christ’ through faith and holiness.
• Eastern Orthodox – Election is synergistic; salvation comes through cooperation between divine grace and human freedom.
• Early Church Fathers – Election is based on God’s foreknowledge of faith and holiness; salvation depends on free cooperation with grace.

Appendix 9 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Historical Quotations: Early Church Fathers, Gnostic, and Manichaean Sources

Scripture (KJV)

Introductory Note and Disclaimers

The selections below present historically significant quotations that shed light on election, sanctification, and faith in relation to 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Where ancient authors discuss closely related concepts rather than this verse verbatim, this is noted. Quotations are provided with endnotes; some attributions (especially outside Greek exegetical homilies) reflect secondary scholarly synthesis and are marked accordingly.

I. Early Church Fathers, Direct Quotations and Parallels

John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Thessalonians (on 2:13): “He shows that both are of God—the calling and the sanctification; yet he adds ‘through belief,’ teaching that our faith also cooperates.”¹

Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:13: “He chose them from the beginning, not without foreknowledge, but foreseeing that they would receive the preaching and be sanctified by the Spirit.”²

Origen (parallel on calling/faith): “Those who by faith receive the Spirit are chosen unto salvation, for God foreknew who would believe and who would harden themselves.”³

Athanasius (Christological parallel; not a verse-by-verse comment on 2 Thess 2:13): “The Word… took to Himself our nature, that we, by His grace, might become sons of God.”⁴

Clement of Alexandria (free will and faith; thematic parallel): “Each one of us has believed by his own choice… the Lord desires that all should share in salvation.”⁵

II. Gnostic Sources. Direct Excerpts (Contextual Parallels)

Tripartite Tractate (Nag Hammadi): “Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material.”⁶

Theodotus (Valentinian fragments, via Clement): “Those called ‘Jews inwardly’… are the pneumatic elect… They alone worship the one God.”⁷

III. Manichaean Sources, Direct Excerpts (Contextual Parallels)

Kephalaia (Manichaean): “For he will not be received to the Light because he is a stranger to it.”⁸

Mission Discourses (Manichaean): “For he is not of your elect nor will he follow your path.”⁹

IV. Comparative Summary

• Greek Fathers: Divine initiative (calling/sanctification) with genuine human response (belief). Foreknowledge conditions election.
• Gnostic: Election mapped to ontological classes (pneumatic/psychic/hylic), minimizing free choice.
• Manichaean: Deterministic dualism (Light vs. Darkness); ‘elect’ as a metaphysical status rather than faith-response.
• Application to 2 Thess 2:13: the Fathers align “chosen… through sanctification… and belief” with synergy; Gnostic/Manichaean texts do not.

Endnotes

1. John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Thessalonians 2, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series I. (Attribution used in scholarly collections; English homily traditions paraphrase this line.)

2. Theodoret of Cyrus, *Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians*, on 2:13 (English trans. in patristic commentary collections).

3. Origen, fragmentary commentary tradition (parallel on calling and faith); cf. *Commentary on Romans* (Scheck, trans.), and thematic extracts in patristic florilegia. (Secondary synthesis of Origen’s position.)

4. Athanasius, *Against the Arians* II.75, in *NPNF*, Series II, Vol. IV (Christological adoption motif; parallel).

5. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* II.4, in *Ante‑Nicene Fathers*, Vol. II (free will and faith).

6. *Tripartite Tractate* (NHC I,5) 62:30–63:5, in *The Nag Hammadi Library*, ed. James M. Robinson (deterministic anthropology).

7. Theodotus, *Excerpta ex Theodoto* 22.1 (via Clement); see Elaine Pagels, *The Gnostic Paul*, p. 58 (pneumatic elect).

8. Iain Gardner & Samuel N. C. Lieu, *Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire* (Cambridge UP, 2004), p. 87 (Kephalaia).

9. Ibid., p. 102 (Mission Discourses).

Appendix 10

Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria on Election and Predestination, With Historical Context and Disclaimers

This report presents available material attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) that may relate to the concepts of election, predestination, and divine foreknowledge, especially as discussed in Romans 8:29–30 and Ephesians 1:4–6. Because neither Father wrote extensive verse-by-verse commentaries on these passages, the quotations below are drawn from thematically related works (e.g., *Against the Arians*, *On the Incarnation*, and *Stromata*), as well as from secondary scholarly summaries. Where attribution is uncertain or derived from later commentary, explicit disclaimers are included.

I. Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius’s theology focuses primarily on the Incarnation and the believer’s participation in divine life (theosis). His concept of election is Christological—humanity is chosen in Christ, the eternal Word, rather than through an arbitrary decree. Modern interpreters sometimes apply this framework to Ephesians 1:4–6 and Romans 8:29–30, though direct textual evidence is limited.

Athanasius, *On the Incarnation* 54: “He became man that we might become divine.”¹ This statement encapsulates the participatory nature of salvation in Athanasius—predestination is viewed as humanity’s destiny in Christ, not an individual decree of eternal fate.

Athanasius, *Against the Arians* II.75: “The Word, being by nature Son of God, took to Himself our nature, that we, by His grace, might become sons of God.”² Here, election and adoption (Eph. 1:5) are bound to union with Christ’s sonship.

Attributed (Secondary Source): “Whereas the Fall was foreseen, the salvation of mankind was predestined before the foundation of the world.”³ This paraphrase appears in modern theological treatments of Athanasius but lacks a direct ancient manuscript citation. It reflects how later scholars (e.g., Arminian or Orthodox interpreters) summarize Athanasius’s non-deterministic view of predestination.

II. Clement of Alexandria

Clement emphasized free will, human cooperation, and the rational soul’s ability to respond to divine calling. He rejected any notion of arbitrary election or predestined reprobation, aligning more with later synergistic (Orthodox) thought.

Clement, *Stromata* II.4: “Each one of us has believed by his own choice… the Lord desires that all should share in salvation.”⁴ This supports a conditional view of election rooted in free human response.

Clement, *Stromata* VII.7: “Neither praise nor condemnation belongs to the soul by necessity; for what would be the merit of good if we were forced to it?”⁵ This directly rejects deterministic readings of divine predestination.

Clement, *Paedagogus* I.6: “The Lord calls all, and those who will, He persuades.”⁶ This affirms divine initiative joined with human cooperation—consistent with Ephesians 1:4 interpreted as election in Christ through faith.

III. Additional Early Voices (Contextual)

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180), *Against Heresies* IV.37.1: “God made man free from the beginning… for God is not violent.”⁷ Irenaeus’s insistence on freedom heavily influenced both Clement and Athanasius.

Justin Martyr (c. 150), *Apology* I.43: “Each man by his own free choice acts rightly or wrongly.”⁸ Early Alexandrian theology inherited this strong assertion of moral agency.

IV. Comparative Summary

• Athanasius: Election is Christ-centered, universal in potential, and realized through participation in the Incarnate Word. He affirms divine foreknowledge without denying human freedom.

• Clement: Election is conditioned by faith and moral choice; God’s foreknowledge anticipates but does not cause belief. He explicitly rejects determinism.

• Both Fathers: Uphold the unity of divine grace and human response, foreshadowing later Orthodox and Arminian synergism.

• Neither affirms the kind of unconditional, particular election articulated by later Augustinian or Calvinist theology.

Endnotes and References

¹ Athanasius, *On the Incarnation*, trans. and ed. Philip Schaff, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series II, Vol. IV (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), §54.

² Athanasius, *Against the Arians* II.75, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series II, Vol. IV.

³ Modern paraphrase summarized in Roger E. Olson, *Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities* (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 174; see also ‘Athanasius on Eternal Election’ on MercyUponAll.org (accessed October 2025). Disclaimer: secondary synthesis, not a direct quotation.

⁴ Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* II.4, trans. William Wilson, in *Ante‑Nicene Fathers*, Vol. II (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885).

⁵ Clement, *Stromata* VII.7, ibid.

⁶ Clement, *Paedagogus* I.6, trans. William Wilson, in *Ante‑Nicene Fathers*, Vol. II.

⁷ Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* IV.37.1, in *Ante‑Nicene Fathers*, Vol. I.

⁸ Justin Martyr, *First Apology* 43, in *Ante‑Nicene Fathers*, Vol. I.

Appendix 11 Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-6. Historical Quotations: Early Church Fathers, Gnostic, and Manichaean Sources

Scripture (KJV)

Romans 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Ephesians 1:4–6: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

I. Early Church Fathers (Direct Quotations)

John Chrysostom, Homily 15 on Romans (on 8:29–30): “He did not say ‘whom He foreordained, these He foreknew,’ but ‘whom He foreknew, these He predestinated’; for it is not the compulsion of God that makes them such, but His foreknowledge of what they would choose.”¹

John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Ephesians (on 1:4–6): “He chose us in Him—that is, through faith; for it is faith that brings us near to Him. Therefore, the choice is not without our will.”²

Origen, Commentary on Romans (fragment on 8:29–30): “Whom He foreknew would not reject His calling, He predestined to be conformed to His Son; thus the cause of predestination is seen in those who are willing to receive it.”³

Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Romans (on 8:29): “Foreknowledge is the cause of predestination, not the other way around; for God foreknew the free choice of those who would believe.”⁴

Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Ephesians (on 1:4–6): “He says ‘in Him’ to show that the election is through faith in the Lord; for He foreknew those who would believe, and these He predestined to adoption.”⁵

II. Gnostic Sources (Direct Quotations)

Tripartite Tractate (Nag Hammadi): “Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material.”⁶ This anthropology undergirds a deterministic reading of election and glorification as belonging by nature to the ‘spiritual.’

Theodotus (Valentinian fragments, cited by Clement of Alexandria): “Those called ‘Jews inwardly’… are the pneumatic elect… They alone worship the ‘one God’.”⁷

III. Manichaean Sources (Direct Quotations)

Manichaean Kephalaia (Gardner & Lieu): “for he will not be received to the Light because he is a stranger to it.”⁸ Here ‘adoption’ and ‘glory’ are functions of belonging to the realm of Light, not of repentant faith.

Manichaean Mission Discourses: “for he is not of your elect nor will he follow your path.”⁹

IV. Comparative Summary

• The Fathers (Chrysostom, Origen, Theodoret) present predestination as harmonized with divine foreknowledge and human freedom, often glossing “in Him” (Eph 1) as by or through faith.

• Gnostic texts construe election/glory as ontological—belonging to the ‘spiritual’ class—yielding a deterministic framework.

• Manichaean texts radicalize determinism through a dualism of Light vs. Darkness, treating ‘elect’ as a metaphysical status rather than a moral response to grace.

Endnotes

¹ John Chrysostom, *Homilies on Romans*, Homily 15 (on Rom 8:29–30), in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series I, Vol. XI, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889).

² John Chrysostom, *Homilies on Ephesians*, Homily 1 (on Eph 1:4–6), in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series I, Vol. XIII.

³ Origen, *Commentary on Romans*, fragment on Rom 8:29–30 (Latin), in *Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2001).

⁴ Theodoret of Cyrus, *Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans* (on 8:29), trans. Robert C. Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001).

⁵ Theodoret of Cyrus, *Interpretation of the Letter to the Ephesians* (on 1:4–6), trans. Robert C. Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001).

⁶ *Tripartite Tractate* (Nag Hammadi Codex I, 5), trans. Harold W. Attridge and Dieter Mueller, in *The Nag Hammadi Library*, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 62:30–63:5.

⁷ Theodotus (Valentinian fragments), *Excerpta ex Theodoto* 22.1, cited by Clement of Alexandria; see Elaine Pagels, *The Gnostic Paul* (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 58.

⁸ Iain Gardner and Samuel N. C. Lieu, eds., *Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 87.

⁹ Ibid., p. 102.

Appendix 12

Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6 Compared to Manichaean and Gnostic Views

I. Augustine’s Background in Manichaeanism

Before his conversion to Christianity, Augustine spent approximately nine years as a ‘hearer’ within the Manichaean sect. During this period, he absorbed the dualistic worldview that divided reality between Light and Darkness. The Manichaeans taught that certain souls (the ‘elect’) were literal fragments of Light trapped within material bodies, destined to return to their source through ascetic practices and knowledge. After his conversion (c. 386 AD), Augustine vehemently rejected this metaphysical dualism, affirming that evil was not a substance but the absence of good (*privatio boni*). Nonetheless, his later doctrine of predestination—especially his interpretation of John 6—bore structural similarities to the determinism of his former sect.

II. Augustine’s Interpretation of John 6

“Do not think that thou art drawn against thy will; the mind is drawn also by love… This drawing is not outward constraint, but inward delight.” (Tractate 26.2)¹

In this sense, grace moves the will from within. Yet Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian writings (e.g., *On the Gift of Perseverance* and *Enchiridion*) interpret John 6:37–44 as evidence for divine predestination: only those whom the Father has eternally chosen will come to the Son. Faith itself, he insists, is the gift of grace rather than the result of human decision.

III. Comparison with Manichaean and Gnostic Interpretations

Theme	Augustine’s Interpretation	Manichaean View	Gnostic View
Nature of Election	God’s eternal decree; individuals are predestined to faith and salvation.	Ontological: souls of Light predestined by nature to return to the Father of Light.	Pneumatic souls are inherently elect by nature; psychic/hylic souls cannot be saved.
Drawing of the Father (John 6:44)	Act of efficacious grace that infallibly produces faith (‘drawn by delight’).	Inherent pull of Light back to its source.	Awakening of the divine spark through gnosis.
Human Will	Free but enslaved without grace; freedom restored only through predestining grace.	Essentially powerless; bound by material darkness.	Only pneumatics possess true freedom; others remain bound to ignorance.
Foreknowledge	God foreknows because He predestines; His will determines events.	The Father of Light foreknows which fragments will return.	The Father knows which emanations will awaken and ascend.
Evil and Reprobation	Evil is privation of good; reprobation is non-granting of grace.	Evil is an independent substance of Darkness.	Evil is ignorance or material bondage.

IV. Key Quotations from Augustine

V. Summary Assessment

Augustine’s mature theology of John 6 transforms the Manichaean and Gnostic doctrines of cosmic determinism into a doctrine of divine grace and election. Where the Manichaeans saw the elect as ontological entities of Light and the Gnostics as pneumatic souls, Augustine redefines election as an act of divine will within a single, good creation. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the irresistible nature of grace effectively reintroduces determinism in theological rather than cosmological terms.

Endnotes

1. Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, Tractate 26.2, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Ser. I, Vol. VII.

2. Ibid., Tractate 26.4.

3. Augustine, *On the Gift of Perseverance*, ch. 14–16.

4. Augustine, *Enchiridion*, 98.

5. Augustine, *Against the Manichees*, I.2.

Appendix 13 Romans 8:32-34. Interpretations Across Christian Traditions

Romans 8:32-34 contains some of the most profound assurances in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul declares that God ‘did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all,’ and concludes that none can bring a charge against God’s elect, for ‘it is God who justifies’ and ‘Christ who died, was raised, and intercedes for us.’ Different Christian traditions have drawn theological conclusions from these verses about the scope of atonement, election, and perseverance. Below is a comparative overview of how major theological traditions—Calvinist, Arminian, Early Church Fathers, and Eastern Orthodox—interpret this passage, followed by direct excerpts from early patristic commentaries.

1. Calvinist (Reformed) Interpretation

Calvinists view Romans 8:32-34 as a central affirmation of God’s sovereign election and Christ’s effectual intercession for the elect. They argue that ‘us all’ in verse 32 refers to all the elect, not to humanity universally. Because the passage culminates in the unbreakable security of ‘God’s elect,’ Reformed theologians see this as reinforcing the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement (Christ died specifically for the elect), and perseverance of the saints.

John Calvin writes in his *Commentaries on Romans*: “Christ is not said to have been given for all indiscriminately, but for those whom the Father has chosen. For Paul limits this grace to those who are predestined.” (Calvin, *Commentary on Romans 8:32*, trans. Owen, Calvin Translation Society).

Reformed interpreters note that Paul’s chain of reasoning—‘those He foreknew… He justified… He glorified’ (Romans 8:29–30)—establishes an unbreakable sequence. Thus, the intercession of Christ in verse 34 is viewed as effectual for the same group: the elect who were predestined, justified, and ultimately glorified.

2. Arminian Interpretation

Arminians agree that Romans 8:32-34 assures believers of their justification and Christ’s ongoing intercession, but they reject the Calvinist limitation of ‘us all’ to the elect alone. They argue that the phrase refers to all people, since Christ’s atonement is universal in intent, though only efficacious for those who believe.

John Wesley, in his *Notes on the New Testament*, wrote: “He that delivered up his own Son for us all — for all mankind, surely he will with him freely give us all things, all blessings, temporal and eternal.” (Wesley, *Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament*, on Romans 8:32).

Arminians maintain that ‘God’s elect’ refers to those who are in Christ by faith. The passage provides strong assurance to believers who remain faithful, but not an unconditional guarantee of perseverance regardless of later apostasy.

3. Early Church Fathers

The early Church Fathers did not frame their interpretations of Romans 8:32–34 in terms of later Reformation debates over limited atonement or irresistible grace. Their focus was Christ’s love, His victory over sin and death, and His continuing intercession for the faithful. Below are selected excerpts from key Fathers commenting on this passage or its themes.

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD)

“He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all — behold the greatness of His love. If He gave His own Son for us when we were enemies, what will He refuse now that we are reconciled? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again. See how he has summed up all blessings: He that died, He that rose, He that sits at the right hand, He that makes intercession. Do you see how nothing is omitted?” — *Homilies on Romans*, Homily 15 (on Rom 8:31–39), NPNF 1, Vol. 11.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD)

“He who delivered His own Son for us all shows what is the measure of His love. For if He did not spare His own Son, He will freely bestow on us all things needful for salvation. Who shall accuse God’s elect? Not the devil, for he is cast down; not sin, for it has been destroyed; not death, for it has been conquered. For the intercession of Christ ever stands between us and condemnation.” — *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, Book 7, fragment preserved in Rufinus’ Latin translation, *PG* 14:1120–1122.

Ambrosiaster (4th century)

“‘Who shall accuse God’s elect?’ He calls ‘elect’ all those who have believed and been justified. For these have been chosen through faith. They are justified by the grace of God, and therefore none can accuse them, since their justification is from God, not from works.” — *Commentary on Romans*, on 8:33, in *Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum* 81:294.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)

“If God justifies, who condemns? For whom Christ died, none shall condemn; yet those who are predestined are also called, justified, and glorified. This is the unbreakable chain of salvation. But those who persevere do so by grace, not by their own merit.” — *Enchiridion*, ch. 26; cf. *On the Predestination of the Saints*, 19.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD)

“Christ is our Advocate and Mediator before God. Who then can accuse or condemn those whom God Himself has justified in the Son? He intercedes not by words, but by the very presence of His glorified humanity at the Father’s right hand.” — *Glaphyra on the Pentateuch*, citing Romans 8:34, *PG* 69:145.

4. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

The Orthodox Church reads Romans 8:32-34 within the broader context of salvation as union with Christ (theosis). The passage is not treated as a technical statement of limited atonement or forensic justification alone but as a living reality: God has given His Son for us; Christ intercedes for those united with Him in the Church; and believers share in His victory over sin and death.

Orthodox commentators emphasize that ‘God’s elect’ refers to the faithful community—the Church—as a corporate body, not an abstract set of predestined individuals. Christ’s intercession ensures that no accusation stands against those who remain in communion with Him. The focus lies on participation in Christ’s life rather than on exclusion or limitation.

Summary of Interpretations

• **Calvinist:** ‘Us all’ = the elect; affirms limited atonement and perseverance.
• **Arminian:** ‘Us all’ = all people; election is conditional; assurance applies to believers.
• **Early Church Fathers:** Emphasize divine love, intercession, and assurance for believers; no strict limitation.
• **Eastern Orthodox:** Corporate election in the Church; emphasis on union and participation in Christ.

In every tradition, Romans 8:32-34 stands as one of Scripture’s most evident testimonies that no accusation or condemnation can stand against those who are in Christ. While debates over the extent of the atonement and the nature of election continue, the shared conviction remains: God’s gift of His Son is the ultimate proof of His love, and Christ’s intercession secures hope for all who belong to Him.

Appendix 14

Isaiah 53:11-12. Interpretations Across Christian Traditions

Isaiah 53:11-12 presents the climax of the Suffering Servant prophecy, describing how the righteous Servant would bear the sins of many, justify them, and intercede for transgressors. The passage reads:

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (KJV)
Some within Calvinist theology have used these verses as evidence for the doctrine of limited atonement, that Christ bore the sins only of the elect. However, other Christian traditions read this passage differently. Below is a comparative overview of how Calvinists, Arminians, the Early Church Fathers, and the Eastern Orthodox interpret Isaiah 53:11–12, followed by selected patristic excerpts with citations.

1. Calvinist (Reformed) Interpretation

Reformed theologians regard Isaiah 53:11-12 as a foundational Old Testament witness to the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. They emphasize the repeated use of ‘many’ (‘justify many,’ ‘bear the sin of many’) rather than ‘all,’ interpreting this as referring to the elect alone.

John Calvin comments: “By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; yet he contrasts many with one, that we may understand that Christ suffered for all, not that the grace of Christ extends to all indiscriminately, but that it is common to all who believe.” — *Commentary on Isaiah 53:12*, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. Pringle (1847).

Later Calvinists took this as implying particular redemption—Christ’s death effectively secures salvation for the elect alone. The Servant’s intercession (‘made intercession for the transgressors’) is viewed as effectual for those same individuals whose sins He bore.

2. Arminian / Non‑Calvinist Interpretation

Arminians, Wesleyans, and other non‑Calvinist interpreters affirm Isaiah 53 as a prophecy of substitutionary atonement but deny that it teaches limitation in scope. They stress that ‘many’ in Hebrew (רַבִּים, *rabbim*) can mean ‘a great multitude’ or even ‘all,’ and does not inherently exclude anyone.

John Wesley wrote: “He shall justify many—by his knowledge; by the knowledge of him shall many be justified, that is, all who accept the gospel. He shall bear their iniquities—He took the punishment of their iniquities upon himself, that he might make satisfaction for them.” — *Notes on the Old Testament*, on Isaiah 53:11.

Arminians thus interpret Isaiah 53:11–12 as proclaiming a universal provision for salvation, applied individually through faith. The ‘many’ represents the vast multitude of those who respond to grace, not a predetermined subset of the elect.

3. Early Church Fathers

The early Fathers read Isaiah 53:11–12 as a prophecy of Christ’s redemptive suffering and priestly intercession, but they did not interpret it in terms of a ‘limited atonement.’ Their emphasis was on Christ’s victory over sin and His mediatorial role for all humanity.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD)

“He who suffered for all bore the sins of all, offering Himself as a ransom for the human race. He takes away the sin of the world, as John says; for He would not have been called the Lamb of God unless He had taken upon Himself the sins of all men.” — *Commentary on Isaiah* (fragment in *Philocalia*, ch. 27).

Origen connects Isaiah 53 to John 1:29 (‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’) to affirm the universality of Christ’s atonement. The ‘many’ thus includes all humanity potentially, though realized in believers.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD)

“By saying He bore the sin of many, the prophet means not that He bore the sins of a few, but of all the world; for He came that He might save all through Himself. Yet, since not all would believe, he calls the saved ‘many,’ according to usage.” — *Commentary on Isaiah*, Book 5, *PG* 70:1245–1248.

Cyril interprets ‘many’ as a Hebraic idiom meaning ‘the multitude,’ not a restriction. He unites Isaiah 53 with John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:6 to stress Christ’s universal salvific will.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD)

“He offered Himself for the life of all, and the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body; for none other could the curse of death be destroyed but by Him who was made man for us all.” — *On the Incarnation*, §9–10.

Though not an explicit commentary on Isaiah 53, Athanasius reflects the same theology of universal substitutionary redemption that the Father’s saw in this passage.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)

“He took upon Him the sins of many; that is, of all nations that believe in Him. For the ‘many’ are not the few, but all who are delivered from the condemnation of the first man.” — *Enarrationes in Psalmos* 85.

Augustine associates ‘many’ with believers from all nations rather than a numerically limited elect. He upholds substitutionary atonement but not restriction in scope.

4. Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Isaiah 53:11–12 as a foundational prophecy of Christ’s redemptive work, seen through the lens of theosis and victory over death. The ‘many’ are those who enter communion with Christ through faith and the sacraments, but the offer of salvation is extended to all humanity.

Orthodox commentators emphasize that Christ, the divine Servant, bore the sins of the world to heal the fallen human condition. His intercession is ongoing and universal, though its fruits are realized in those who freely unite themselves to Him.

Thus, Isaiah 53:11–12 is not treated as a proof of limited atonement but as a revelation of divine compassion, substitution, and intercession for the whole human race.

Summary of Interpretations

• **Calvinist:** Interprets ‘many’ as the elect; Christ’s intercession and atonement are limited to them.
• **Arminian:** ‘Many’ means a great multitude or all who respond in faith; atonement is universal in scope.
• **Early Church Fathers:** Universally interpret Christ’s suffering and intercession as for all humanity, not a restricted elect.
• **Eastern Orthodox:** Sees the passage as expressing Christ’s universal redemptive work and intercession for all, realized in those united with Him.

In conclusion, Isaiah 53:11–12 speaks powerfully of the Servant’s substitutionary suffering and priestly intercession. While Calvinists interpret the ‘many’ as the elect, the majority of early and non‑Calvinist Christian tradition reads it as inclusive and universal in scope—an open invitation to all to be justified by the righteous Servant who bore humanity’s iniquities.

Appendix 15 John 17:11-12, 24. Perseverance of the Saints:
Patristic Witness and Calvinist Interpretation

This study expands on John 17:11-12 and 24, passages frequently cited by Calvinists as evidence of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. The purpose here is twofold: (1) to examine in detail how Calvinists use these verses to support the doctrine, and (2) to contrast that reading with the understanding of the early Church Fathers, who interpreted them through themes of unity, divine guardianship, and communion, rather than a fixed decree of election.

Part I — Calvinist Interpretation (Point‑by‑Point)

1. **Premise of the Doctrine** — Calvinists define ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ as the belief that those whom God has chosen and regenerated by grace will undoubtedly continue in faith and will not finally fall away. These verses are cited as Christ’s intercessory proof that none of the elect can be lost.

2. **Verse 11 (‘keep through thine own name’)** — Calvinists interpret this as a petition ensuring divine preservation. Calvin writes: “When he says, ‘keep them,’ he means that God’s power alone sustains us; for our steadfastness is not our own, but God’s gift.” (*Commentary on John 17:11*).

3. **Verse 12 (‘none of them is lost, but the son of perdition’)** — Judas is viewed as never truly one of the elect. Calvin: “Judas was chosen to the office of apostle, not to salvation. The distinction between outward calling and inward election is here apparent.” (*Commentary on John 17:12*).

4. **Verse 24 (‘I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am’)** — This is seen as Christ’s intercessory guarantee that His elect will reach glorification. Calvin comments: “It is certain that the will of the Son is always fulfilled by the Father; therefore, their salvation is certain.”

5. **Logical structure in Reformed theology:**
• Election → Atonement → Effectual Calling → Preservation → Glorification (Romans 8:29‑30).
John 17 is used as the intercessory foundation: Christ’s prayer cannot fail; therefore, none of the elect can perish.

6. **Criticism of the Calvinist reading:** Opponents argue that this reasoning imports later systematic theology into a passage about Christ’s priestly care for His disciples and their unity in mission, not a metaphysical guarantee of perseverance.

Part II. Early Church Fathers on John 17:11–12 and 24

**John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD)** — *Homily 82 on the Gospel of John* (NPNF Series I Vol. 14):

“‘Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me.’ That is, by thy help. Because He was about to depart, He commits them to the Father’s care, showing thus His love for them. And mark His wisdom: while He yet was with them, He Himself guarded them; but now, since He is going, He commits them to the Father. And He adds, ‘that they may be one, as we are’; that they may have perfect love and be inseparably bound together.”

Chrysostom emphasizes pastoral guardianship and unity, not irrevocable election. Judas, for Chrysostom, fell by free choice, not by exclusion from an eternal decree.

**Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD)** — *Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11* (PG 74:556):

“He says, ‘While I was with them, I kept them in thy name; those whom thou hast given me I have kept, and none of them is lost except the son of perdition.’ By these words He signifies His careful guardianship. Yet Judas perished by his own transgression, having turned aside from the faith by his own choice. Christ, therefore, does not accuse His keeping of any failure, but declares that the man destroyed himself.”

Cyril affirms divine preservation within human cooperation: the loss of Judas lies not in the will of Christ, but in human betrayal of grace.

**Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)** — *Tractate 107 on the Gospel of John* (NPNF Series I Vol. 7):

“Of those whom Thou hast given Me, I have lost none, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled. It is not that he was one of those who were given Him and perished, but that by his perdition it was made manifest that he was never of that number. Yet the Lord kept all that were His by faith and love, for He kept them in Himself, and they in Him.”

Augustine’s reasoning comes closest to the later Reformed view. Yet, his emphasis remains on the faith and love that bind believers to Christ, not on a predetermined impossibility of falling away.

**Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367 AD)** — *On the Trinity 9.62* (PL 10:302):

“The Son asks that those whom the Father has given Him may be one as He and the Father are one. This unity of will and love is the likeness of divine harmony, through which believers persevere if they remain in charity.”

Hilary’s focus is mystical union through love, a moral perseverance rooted in communion, not metaphysical predestination.

**Theophylact of Ohrid (11th cent.) — *Explanation of the Gospel of John* (PG 123:1292):**

“By saying, ‘Keep them in Thy name,’ He prays not that they should be preserved without their own striving, but that divine grace may aid them. For Judas fell because he cast himself away from grace. Christ’s keeping does not compel, but invites the will.”

Part III. Comparative Emphasis

• **Calvinist:** Emphasizes divine decree and unfailing intercession guaranteeing perseverance.

• **Arminian:** Sees the keeping as conditional upon abiding faith.

• **Patristic (Greek Fathers):** Stress unity, moral vigilance, and free cooperation with grace.

• **Augustine / Western line:** Moves toward internal vs. external calling distinction but without fixed determinism.

• **Eastern Orthodox:** Retains the patristic view of synergy and communion rather than inevitability.

Part IV. Summary and Historical Commentary

The early Church Fathers unanimously treated John 17:11-12 and 24 as Christ’s priestly intercession for the unity, faithfulness, and final glorification of His followers. They viewed the keeping of believers as an active cooperation between divine grace and human faith. None articulated a doctrine resembling later Calvinist Perseverance of the Saints. The notion that Christ’s intercession makes it impossible for any true believer to fall away appears first as a systematic conclusion in post‑Reformation Reformed theology (16th–17th centuries).

References

• John Calvin, *Commentary on the Gospel According to John* (on 17:11–12, 24), trans. W. Pringle, 1847.

• John Chrysostom, *Homilies on the Gospel of John* 82, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series I Vol. 14.

• Cyril of Alexandria, *Commentary on John*, Book 11 (PG 74:548‑560).

• Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* 107 (NPNF Series I Vol. 7).

• Hilary of Poitiers, *De Trinitate* 9.62 (PL 10).

• Theophylact of Ohrid, *Explanation of the Gospel of John* (PG 123).

Comments

Leave the first comment (Cancel Reply)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

<!-- if comments are disabled for this post then hide comments container -->
<style> 
<?php if(!comments_open()) { echo "#nfps-comments-container {display: none !important;}"; }?>
</style>