# Salvation and Reprobation



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Is there anything wrong with this explanation?

From: Shedd, William G. T., Commentary on Romans (1879)



> God is the author of salvation, because He elects; but He is not the author of perdition because He reprobates. In the first instance, He is efficiently active by His Spirit and word; in the second instance He is permissively inactive. If John Doe throw himself into the water, and is rescued by Richard Roe, the statement would be that he is saved because Richard Roe rescued him. But if John Doe throw himself into the water and is not rescued by Richard Roe, the verdict of the coroner would be suicide and not homocide: 'Drowned because he threw himself in' and not 'Drowned because Richard Roe did not pull him out.' So it is with salvation and reprobation.



There's something about it that doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps it's this matter of God being "permissively inactive." I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

NOTE: If a moderator thinks this would be better in the "Wading Pool" feel free to move it. I almost put it there anyway. Thanks


----------



## Hippo (Jun 15, 2008)

I think that it is correct as far as it goes, and perhaps this is as far as it is proper to go.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Any other comments?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I think that it is correct as far as it goes, and perhaps this is as far as it is proper to go.



Any thoughts on the concept of God being "permissively inactive"?


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Any thoughts on the concept of God being "permissively inactive"?



WCF 5:4, "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; *and that not by a bare permission*, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding..."


----------



## moral necessity (Jun 15, 2008)

I think God does more than just not redeem the lost; I think he made the lost. Prov.16:4 - "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts on the concept of God being "permissively inactive"?
> ...




"...and otherwise *ordering and governing them*, in a manifold dispensation, *to his own holy ends*..."

Exactly. And thus my problem with Shedd's wording here. I have read with profit much from Shedd, but this idea of "permissive inactivity" really puzzles me. Am I just "straining at gnats here, or is Shedd really as "off" on this as I think he appears to be?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2008)

I obviously disagree with the notion that reprobation is on the basis of bare permission for that would undermine the idea of Providence altogether.

I do think, however, that there is a distinct difference in the character of workmanship and activity toward the elect in comparison to the reprobate. There is asymmetry and not symmetry. God is the author and finisher of our faith. Christ is interceding for us and ensuring that He who began a good work in us will see it to completion. There is not a corollary in the Scripture with respect to God's activity toward the reprobate. He is _not_ the author of sin and He is not given credit for man's rebellion in the way He is given for the redeemed man's obedience unto Him.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> I think God does more than just not redeem the lost; I think he made the lost. Prov.16:4 - "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."



Would you say then that reprobation, rather than being based in "permissive inactivity" is based more along the lines of an active decree?


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> "...and otherwise *ordering and governing them*, in a manifold dispensation, *to his own holy ends*..."
> 
> Exactly. And thus my problem with Shedd's wording here. I have read with profit much from Shedd, but this idea of "permissive inactivity" really puzzles me. Am I just "straining at gnats here, or is Shedd really as "off" on this as I think he appears to be?



No, you are rightly dividing the word of truth. Shedd often taught sub-Calvinistic concepts; perhaps the influence of the New England school upon him.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I obviously disagree with the notion that reprobation is on the basis of bare permission for that would undermine the idea of Providence altogether.
> 
> I do think, however, that there is a distinct difference in the character of workmanship and activity toward the elect in comparison to the reprobate. There is asymmetry and not symmetry. God is the author and finisher of our faith. Christ is interceding for us and ensuring that He who began a good work in us will see it to completion. There is not a corollary in the Scripture with respect to God's activity toward the reprobate. He is _not_ the author of sin and He is not given credit for man's rebellion in the way He is given for the redeemed man's obedience unto Him.



Thank you. I appreciate the comment about asymmetry rather than symmetry, but a few verses come to mind that make me wonder.

Peter speaks of those who "stumble at the Word...where unto they were appointed..." And Jude speaks of those who were "before of old marked out for this condemnation..." and Paul talks about "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction..." So, it seems to me that God is indeed active in the reprobation of the lost.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > "...and otherwise *ordering and governing them*, in a manifold dispensation, *to his own holy ends*..."
> ...



I've been reading Shedd on Romans, and I've agreed with most everything I've read from him up to this point. It was rather startling then when this section just seemed to come out of no where. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 15, 2008)

Hmmm, could one hold to that asymmetrical view and yet ascribe to double predestination, or are they mutually exclusive of the other?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Zenas--

Good question. Anyone?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I obviously disagree with the notion that reprobation is on the basis of bare permission for that would undermine the idea of Providence altogether.
> ...



I didn't state he was inactive. I already noted that it was not a bare permission. My point is that there is no 4 chapter corollary to Romans 5-8 that speaks definitively about God's activity toward the reprobate. There is no "golden chain" of reprobation where the sinner sees God impelling Him toward sin and judgment. We need to recognize the very special care and attention that God pays toward His own and not assume that, on the reverse side of the coin, he's doing the exact opposite to every reprobate. Even Paul's language about the two vessels in Romans 9 is distincitively different in terms of care and attention. One vessel is being lavished with attention while the other is being endured.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 15, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Right, I get that. That is what WCF 5. 4 says:



> IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; *yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin*.



I guess my "sticking point" right now is: Though we affirm it is not a matter of "bare permission," and that there is no "golden chain of reprobation," yet there definitely seems to be a sense of God's direct agency in the reprobation of the non-elect. Can we know "where the line is?" (so to speak). Or is this one of those areas that are a "mystery?" "How far" does Scripture allow us go in our understanding of God's agency in reprobation?


----------



## moral necessity (Jun 15, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > I think God does more than just not redeem the lost; I think he made the lost. Prov.16:4 - "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."
> ...



In my opinion, I would say so. I think he is actively working and restraining all things to his glory, both regarding the wicked and the just. In my mind, Godly passivity is just his negative activity. A wrestler uses both to get his opponent off balance and accomplish his desired end. I assume God does the same with the wicked and the just. He "works all things according to the counsel of his will".(Eph.1:11) He even makes vessels for dishonorable use, (Rom.9:21), so much so that such a one can say, "why have you made me like this?" (Rom.9:20).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...



Personally, I'm not comfortable speculating beyond what the Scriptures reveal at this point. I believe that the will of the creature is not overthrown nor the contingency of secondary causes by God's decree of all things. I do not precisely understand the activity in reprobation.

One thing that really has struck me over the last several weeks as I'm going through Acts chapter by chapter is how the response of the Sanhedrin and other rejecters of the Gospel is in stark contrast to the same evidence and same News as others who were cut to the heart. I suppose I could speculate on God's agency in hardening their hearts to such clear Truths. I mean, really, what kind of hard heart does one require to see the healing of a lame man since birth and then tell the Apostles to stop preaching in the Name the man was healed?! It struck me, though, that this is exactly how they treated Christ's miracles.

There has got to be some sort of profound spiritual blindness that doesn't see the inconsistency between what they notice must be the case and how they decide to deny what they know. The Synagogue of the Freedman drum up charges against Stephen because they cannot withstand his exegesis. Instead of submitting to the Truth they kill the person with the Truth. Why? It makes no sense.

I cannot simply state that God is somehow the author of this because Romans 10, as elsewhere, never allows men the out to say "...God made me deny it...." Romans 1 clearly condemns men for their supression of the Truth.

I cannot be certain of how spiritual blinding works in all its details but I am very certain how it is I see and rejoice and that is by the agency of the Gospel and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. I can speak all day long about how God makes men alive who were dead in transgressions and sins but there is a respectful distance I maintain before I'll venture into speculation about the agency God uses to blind men. I know He does it and I know He'll be glorified in the punishment of men for it. I also know that nobody will be able to answer against their Creator for it and will have to acknowledge that His judgment is Just. That's enough for me.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 15, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hmmm, could one hold to that asymmetrical view and yet ascribe to double predestination, or are they mutually exclusive of the other?



If the two were symmetrical, it would lend support to equal ultimacy. God would receive as much glory and enjoyment from the reprobates as he does from the elect. Some theologians in the Calvinist tradition freely affirm double predestination but deny equal ultimacy. Some of the equivocating language, whether "passive," "permissive," or whatever, is an attempt to refrain from going beyond the witness of Scripture to push the logic to an ultimate (or, in this case, equal ultimate) conclusion. They want to be faithful to the confessions when they attribute to God "all things whatsoever comes to pass" AND when they deny that God is the author of evil or responsible for sin.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 15, 2008)

But isn't the passive action of God still an implicitly active predestination of the reprobate to damnation? 

This is an imperfect hypothetical, but if my dog runs out into the street and I have the power to grab his leash and choose not to and he is hit by a car that I knew would kill him, while I am not morally responsible for his death, I am causally responsible for it. 

Maybe I'm off the trail here.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 16, 2008)

Andrew,

Calvinists don't ususally shirk from accepting the fact that God's predestination makes him the ultimate cause. However, in order to do justice to the Biblical record, there is a strong desire to deal with the issue of him not being the author of evil. Equal ultimacy cuts to the chase and says, yes, God is the cause of it all, he is God afeterall; asymmetrical views (e.g., MacArthur) attempt to speak of a difference in the glorious election of the saints and the miserable reprobation of the damned. 

It would seem to me that the difference between a high and moderate Calvinist, in part, traces to how far they are willing to push the logic of the double predestination they both affirm. R.C. Sproul, for example, is a double predestinarian. He has sounded to me on more than one occasion as if he tries to back away from equal ultimacy. Maybe somebody else can speak more definitively on him?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 16, 2008)

"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul


----------



## Cotton Mather (Jun 16, 2008)

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't these differences reflect different stances with regard to the lapsarian controversy? Shedd was an unashamedly dogmatic infralapsarian, and I think that the quote reflects his position quite well. God, in some senses, inactively permits the fall of mankind and its consequent results. Negative language is used when describing God's decrees. Personally, I'm a supralapsarian and, not surprisingly, think that Shedd's position doesn't go far enough. Shedd's discussion of reprobation is framed in terms of passivity, permissive activity, etc. etc. etc. Maybe not all infralapsarians would use such theologically careless language, but I think the ethos of the argumentation would probably be similar to any other infralapsarian. Orthodox supralapsarianism (in the tradition of Beza, Twisse, Hoeksema, etc.) avoids any notion of equal ultimacy, while insisting that God's decretive action toward both the reprobate and elect is positive. The decree of election and reprobation must precede creation and fall if God's absolute sovereingty be maintained. God is the primary cause of all things (including the damnation of the reprobate) but not the efficient cause of all things (i.e.- the negative means whereby the reprobate are condemned in time). Sorry if what I'm saying is redundant. I'm not so much trying to reiterate what's already been said. I just think that any questions over the theological legitmacy of Shedd's statement strike the cord of fundamental differences in position with respect to the infra/supra debate.

As for Sproul, he's a classic infralapsarian. His discussion of double predestination is 
framed in terms of God's decretive passivity with respect to the reprobate. For Sproul, election is positive and reprobation is thoroughly negative. For someone like Twisse or Hoeksema, reprobation is positive, while the exection of the decree in time is causally inefficient.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 16, 2008)

How is "bare permission" different from other forms of permissions, for instance "active permission" as advocated by Shedd? What did the WCF framers mean? WHy add that adjective "bare" except to distinguish it from other forms of permission, that might be possible.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 18, 2008)

God created the world and mankind for his glory, the punishment of the reprobrate occurs in order to exhibit his glory and such punishment was part of God's original plan at creation.

As such reprobation flows from the decretive will of God. In that sense the punishment of the reprobate is as much the will of God as is the salvation of the elect.


----------

