# Why does reprobation itself have to serve election?



## Confessor (Nov 3, 2008)

I ask this with the other option in mind being that unregenerate elect individuals could serve the same purpose.

Often, what one will say when stressing that reprobation serves election is that "there has to be a Judas to betray the Son of Man" or "there has to be a wicked Sanhedrin to crucify Christ." But do they have to be reprobates? Couldn't God have simply used them to sin and then regenerated them?

I usually look towards the "wheat and chaff" analogy to understand this, but I just can't understand why reprobation itself is necessary to serve election, rather than unregenerate elects.

This sounds like a topic which might have already been discussed earlier, but I did not find any other like this, so I apologize if I missed one.


----------



## MW (Nov 3, 2008)

The purpose in reprobating is taught by the reformed confessions as serving "for the praise of His glorious justice." He didn't "have to" manifest His justice in this way, but He chose to do so, and it does have the effect of making men realise that He has a right to do with His own what He will, and that man really has no right to argue against God.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 4, 2008)

packabacka said:


> Often, what one will say when stressing that reprobation serves election is that "there has to be a Judas to betray the Son of Man" or "there has to be a wicked Sanhedrin to crucify Christ." But do they have to be reprobates? Couldn't God have simply used them to sin and then regenerated them?



Ben,

I would say that reprobation serves the will of God, as do all things. Since election is also subservient to the will of God, it seems that (in one sense) reprobation and election are equally aspects of God's will.

On the other hand, it seems that many would want to guard reprobation from the hatred it engenders in the flesh, and use such arguments to make reprobation more palatable. Although well intended, I think this line of theodicy is not needed.

Cheers,


----------



## Confessor (Nov 4, 2008)

I understand that reprobation is done to display God's justice, and that it is wholly out of His free, sovereign will. I'm not trying to get God "off the hook" here, not by any means. My question is asking about a biblical concept involving reprobation and its natural subservience to election -- or rather, the reprobates' subservience to the elect.

This is regarding the Bible verses speaking of the wicked being offered as a sacrifice for the elect, akin to the chaff being destroyed so that the wheat may be reaped.

*Luke 3:17* -- _His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire._

*Isaiah 43:4* -- _Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give men in exchange for you, and people in exchange for your life._

*Proverbs 21:18* -- _The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright._

Throughout the Bible, God uses the wicked as a tool for bringing about His purposes, such as the crucifixion of Christ, the Exodus, the enslavement of Joseph, etc. In all these, God uses the wicked for His purposes and then destroys them. "The righteous is delivered out of trouble and the wicked cometh in his stead" (Proverbs 11:8). But my question is, Is there any reason why the chaff must be _reprobate_? It fits the analogous illustration, but could the scenario rather be one where the wicked serve their purpose and then are regenerated? Are there any reasons why it would better display God's glory to use reprobates rather than unregenerate elects?

Again, I'm not trying to get God "off the hook" at all; I am trying to see if there is more depth in God's decrees of election and reprobation than I had previously thought. If God simply chooses to use reprobates (i.e. it is not glorifyingly necessary for Him not to use unregenerate elects), then that is fine, but I just want to know the answer.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 4, 2008)

I've never heard any one argue that men are reprobate because God uses them to serve election. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to get at here.

God will use men's wickedness to accomplish his own purposes, whether the wicked are elect or will later come to repentance.

I'm trying to piece together what this argument is that you're wondering about: can we perhaps have more clarification?


----------



## Confessor (Nov 4, 2008)

Oh, I'm not saying that people are reprobate because God uses them a certain way. They are still reprobate first because God wanted them to be. My line of thinking is essentially this:

1. There are Bible verses speaking of God using the wicked to serve His purposes, and one of those purposes is to serve His people.
2. It would still seem that God could have served those purposes just as well using unregenerate elect individuals rather than reprobates. For instance, God could have decreed that the Sanhedrin crucify Christ and then He could have regenerated them.
3. Therefore, are there any reasons why Gould would use reprobates rather than unregenerate elects?

Please note: I am _not_ questioning God's choice to use the reprobates in this manner. I am _not_ saying that He messed up and should have used unregenerate elects instead. I am merely asking if there are reasons _why_ God did it, underlying His free choice. That is, how does using reprobates in this regard glorify Him more maximally than using unregenerate elects?

Does that make more sense? Sorry for being unclear.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 4, 2008)

I think the two are completely unconnected, i.e. Paul was the persecutor of the church, then he came to the faith; Judas was the betrayer of the Lord, but he never did.

Both are used.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Nov 4, 2008)

Unregenerate elect people will not ultimately experience God's wrath for their sins, because they will come to Christ. Romans 9:22-23 says "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...?" Unregenerate elect people cannot serve this purpose of making known to the elect the riches of God's glorious grace, because they are not vessels prepared for destruction. For God to make known to the elect his grace in saving them from the just wrath deserved for their sin, it seems necessary for some people to receive the wrath deserved for their sin, and this purpose would only be served by the reprobate, not unregenerate elect.

Does this answer your question Ben?


----------



## Confessor (Nov 4, 2008)

ChristianHedonist said:


> Does this answer your question Ben?



Well, I understand the purpose of reprobation outside of my question -- to display God's justice and wrath towards sin. I've got that nailed down.

I just want to understand the Bible verses speaking of the wheat and the chaff, and of God sacrificing humans (reprobates) for His elect, etc.


----------



## Confessor (Nov 4, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> I think the two are completely unconnected, i.e. Paul was the persecutor of the church, then he came to the faith; Judas was the betrayer of the Lord, but he never did.
> 
> Both are used.



Thanks for this example.

How would you say these relate to the verses I posted earlier? God speaks of giving men as a ransom for His people, and the wheat/chaff illustration depicts a section that is used solely to be destroyed after such use. Is there any part of reprobation that glorifies God better than an unregenerate elect would in such situations?


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 4, 2008)

See:

Herman Hoeksema : The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel
The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel


----------



## Confessor (Nov 5, 2008)

Ralph,



That is exactly the article that caused my question.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 5, 2008)

For one, we don't know who the reprobate are...but the assurance in the doctrine is that no matter what, the reprobate (unsaveable sinner) can only benefit the elect, no matter what he does...for all is to the Glory of God. The Bible uses the term "wicked" because as you are quoting, he does use the wicked to prosper the righteous, even monetarily...a proverb states that the LORD takes from the wicked to benefit the righteous...and the others you quoted already.

All that is being stated by those who teach the doctrine of reprobation, is simply that, there is great assurance to the elect in knowing that none of the enemies weapons can prosper against the elect of God. And again, you are right in thinking that God could use a wicked person to "...work all things to the good...the called according to His Purpose"; and then at a later point in the future, justify that sinner to His glory...as one posted of Saul of Tarsus. He was thourghly lost, and persecuting the Church, yet, God bestowed His Grace on him.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 5, 2008)

Oh...one more thing...I believe there is a book through the PRCA on this subject, by Herman Hoeksema...VERY well written and I think others would find a good read...short but deep.


----------

